Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GRANDSPAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RICARDO BERNARDO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 174792 2012-03-07	WILFREDO ARO v. NLRC PERALTA, J.
In a number of cases,[12] the Court has held that the length of service or the re-hiring of construction workers on a project-to-project basis does not confer upon them regular employment status, since their re-hiring is only a natural consequence of the fact that experienced construction workers are preferred. Employees who are hired for carrying out a separate job, distinct from the other undertakings of the company, the scope and duration of which has been determined and made known to the employees at the time of the employment , are properly treated as project employees and their services may be lawfully terminated upon the completion of a project.[13] Should the terms of their employment fail to comply with this standard, they cannot be considered project employees.
	GR No. 176627 2007-08-24	GLORY PHILIPPINES v. BUENAVENTURA B. VERGARA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Grandspan Development Corporation v. Bernardo,[14] the Court held that 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. 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 engagement of the employee.[15]
	GR NO. 169353 2007-04-13	PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph. Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists. Thus, the applicable formula to ascertain whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.[9] As we held in Grandspan Development Corporation v. Bernardo:[10]
	GR NO. 154532 2006-10-27	PETRON CORPORATION v. NLRC GARCIA, J.
It is horn-book law that an employee sought to be dismissed must be served two (2) written notices before termination of employment: a notice to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and the subsequent notice to inform him of the employer's decision to discharge him from the service.[26] The procedure is mandatory and non-observance thereof renders the dismissal illegal and void.[27]
	GR NOS. 146653-54 2006-02-20	WESTMONT PHARMACEUTICALS v. RICARDO C. SAMANIEGO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
[8] Grandspan Development Corporation v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 141464, September 21, 2005, p.13, see Article 279, Labor Code, as amended by Section 34, R.A. 6715; citing Bolinao Security and Investigation Service, Inc. v. Toston, G.R. No. 139135, January 29, 2004, p.11; Cebu Marine Beach Resort v. NLRC, G.R. No. 143252, October 20, 2003; and Damasco v. NLRC, 346 SCRA 714 (2000).