Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

POSEIDON FISHING v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 202215 2015-12-09	VICMAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CAMILO ELARCOSA DEL CASTILLO, J.
NAMES DATE HIRED SECTION DATE FIRED Panes, Ruben June 1990 Boiler Oct. 2004 Panes, Recarido August 1990 Boiler Sept. 2004 Tinsay, Jesus 1991 Boiler Sept. 2004 Gonzales, Armando June 1991 Assy./Fin. Feb. 2004 Patoy, Romel Nov. 1991 Boiler Sept. 2004 Ladra, Wilfredo 1992 Plant Maint. Sept. 2004 Balamad, Dante July 1994 Boiler Sept. 2004 Baguio, Simeon 1995 Boiler Sept. 2004 Baguio, Francisco 1995 Block Board June 2004 Tacbobo, Rolando Jan. 1995 Plant Maint. Sept. 2004 Belarga, Norberto 1995 Boiler July 2004 Elarcosa, Camilo 1995 Boiler Sept. 2004 Abugho, Junie June 1996 Boiler Sept. 2004 Pamon, Renante June 1996 Assy./Fin. Sept. 2004 Abugho, Jonard June 1996 Boiler Oct. 2004 Noval, Ronald 1997 Boiler Aug. 2004 Siman, Julito 1997 Boiler Sept. 2004 Baguio, Allan 1997 Boiler Sept. 2004 Cabanday, Ruel 1998 Assy./Fin. Oct. 2004 Salcedo, Joseph 1998 Assy./Fin. Sept. 2004 Lobaynon, Oliver 1998 Boiler Sept. 2004 Panaga, Robinson 1999 Assy./Fin. March 2004 Paguican, Roberto 1999 Boiler Sept. 2004 Ello, Daniel 1999 Boiler Sept. 2004 Taneo, Jesrile 1999 Plywood Rep. Sept. 2004 Indino, Donil 1999 Plywood Rep. Sept. 2004 Narisma, Silverio July 1999 Assy ./Fin. Sept. 2004 Canas, Agapito Jr. Jan. 2000 Plant Maint. Sept. 2004 Gulben, Wilfredo Dec. 2000 Plywood Rep. Sept. 2004 Gulben, Rechie Mar. 2000 Plywood Rep. Sept. 2004 Pacaldo, Chiquito Mar. 2000 Green End May 2002 Dofeliz, Rexy June 2001 Boiler Aug. 2004 x x x x Ramos, Gelven Rhyan July 2002 Boiler Sept. 2004 Colansi, Rodrigo Oct. 2002 Assy./Fin. Sept. 2004 x x x x Jan. 2002 Boiler Sept. 2004 Banda, Marlon June 2003 Boiler Sept. 2004 Elbina, Teofilo Nov. 2003 Boiler July 2004 The foregoing allegations were uncontroverted as no relevant employment files, payrolls and records were submitted by petitioners to refute the information. Being the employer, petitioners have custody and control of important employment documents. As such, failure to submit them gives rise to the presumption that their presentation would be prejudicial to petitioners' cause and leads the Court to conclude that the assertions of respondents are truthful declarations.[68]
	GR No. 178520 2009-06-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Gross negligence under Article 282 of the Labor Code connotes want of care in the performance of one's duties, while habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one's duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.[43] Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of even slight care or diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[44] To constitute a just cause for termination of employment, the neglect of duties must not only be gross but habitual as well. The single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.[45]
	GR NO. 158132 2007-07-04	RAYCOR AIRCONTROL SYSTEMS v. MARIO SAN PEDRO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Other than the 1995 employment contract it issued to respondent, which contract we have held to be insufficient evidence of project employment,[20] petitioner utterly failed to adduce additional evidence which would have convinced us that: 1) each time it hired and rehired respondent, it intended for him to accomplish specific tasks in the particular project to which he was assigned; 2) it intended for respondent to carry out these specific tasks in accordance with the project plan it had drawn out and within the limited time it had to complete the same; and 3) it made such restrictions on each engagement known to respondent, and the same were freely accepted by him. Petitioner's failure to present such evidence is inexcusable, given its access to such documents as project contracts, payment remittances, employment records and payslips.[21] Such lapse is dismaying, considering that in Raycor v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court had signalled to petitioner that, given the peculiar nature of its business, it had a strong case against the regularization of some of its workers. The Court even enumerated the kind of evidence petitioner should present to establish the project employment of its workers.
	GR NO. 169353 2007-04-13	PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as "project employees," as distinguished from "regular employees," is whether or not the project employees were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.[11] As defined, project employees are those workers hired (1) for a specific project or undertaking, and (2) the completion or termination of such project or undertaking has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.[12] However, petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that respondents were hired merely as project employees. A perusal of the records of the case reveals that the supposed specific project or undertaking of petitioner was not satisfactorily identified in the contracts of respondents. To illustrate, the following is a list of the names of respondents and the projects written in their employment contracts: NAMES PROJECT NAME Leonora A. Torres Additional Manpower cover additional workloads of PAL II transferred to PAL I Operations,[13] PAL II Transfer to PAL I Operations[14] Arnel T. Amor EDC-Drilling,[15] Maintenance of Drilling Materials,[16] Assist in Repair Maintenance of Vehicles/Equipments at Equipment Maintenance Section[17] Wilson D. Nuay EDC Drilling Activities,[18] Rig #3 Operation on OK-3RWOBL-2DWO,[19] Maintenance of Drilling Materials,[20] LG4D Drilling Operation,[21] SNGP FCDS Project,[22] Fabrication Personal Driver for CD Turned-Over Projects[23] Roberto S. Renzal PAL II FCDS Nasuji-NJA RI Line and Associated Works,[24] PAL II FCDS PN33/PN25 Branchline/ Nasuji-NJA-Sogongon,[25] SNGP FCDS Project,[26] Cawayan Restoration Works,[27] SNGP FCDS Project PAL I/PAL II Refurbishments,[28] Support Workload increase in Fabrication/Equipment Maintenance Section[29] Alejandro B. Tabañera, Jr. Temporary Increase in Workload of Maintenance and Repair Activities of Light and Heavy Equipment,[30] Troubleshooting/Repair of All Equipments[31] Rosela S. Calimpong PAL II Transfer to PAL I Operations Clerical Workloads,[32] Additional Manpower to cover additional workloads of PAL II transferred to PAL I Operations[33]