This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-03-10 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| For this reason, the Court held in Caseres v. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation[8] that the repeated and successive rehiring of project employees do not qualify them as regular employees, as length of service is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a project employee, but whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, its completion has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Second. It is a well-established rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should raise only questions of law, subject to certain exceptions.[26] Whether or not Agripino was a seasonal/project employee or a regular employee is a question of fact.[27] As such, this Court is not at liberty to review the said factual issue because our jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law that the CA may have committed. Time and again, we have held that this Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not for us to re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of evidence presented before the LA, the NLRC and the CA, which formed the basis of the assailed decision. Indeed, when their findings are in absolute agreement, the same are accorded not only respect but even finality as long as they are amply supported by substantial evidence.[28] | |||||