This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-09-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Both the Constitution and the Labor Code mandate the protection of labor. Hence, as a matter of judicial policy, this Court has, in a number of instances, leaned backwards to protect labor and the working class against the machinations and incursions of their more financially entrenched employers.[29] Where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by an employee, such imposition should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy and morals.[30] However, we take this occasion to emphasize that the law, while protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes neither the oppression nor the destruction of the employer. When the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor, the scale should never be so tilted if the result would be an injustice to the employer.[31] Thus, this Court cannot be compelled to declare respondent as a regular employee when by the nature of respondent's work as a reliever stevedore and his accumulated length of service of only eight months do not qualify him to be declared as such under the provisions of the Labor Code alone.[32] | |||||