Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 185251 2009-10-02	RAUL G. LOCSIN v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY VELASCO JR., J.
It is beyond cavil that there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties from the time of petitioners' first assignment to respondent by SSCP in 1988 until the alleged termination of the Agreement between respondent and SSCP. In fact, this was the conclusion that was reached by this Court in Abella v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,[7] where we ruled that petitioners therein, including herein petitioners, cannot be considered as employees of PLDT. It bears pointing out that petitioners were among those declared to be employees of their respective security agencies and not of PLDT.
	GR NO. 167760 2007-03-07	MANILA JOCKEY CLUB EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION- PTGWO v. MANILA JOCKEY CLUB GARCIA, J.
While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be presumed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. The partiality for labor has not in any way diminished our belief that justice in every case is for the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.[6]