This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activities in which they are employed.[13] Regular employees are further classified into (1) regular employees - by nature of work and (2) regular employees - by years of service.[14] The former refers to those employees who perform a particular function which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to those employees who have been performing the job, regardless of its nature thereof, for at least a year.[15] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As stated above, petitioner interchangeably characterizes respondents' service as project and fixed term employment. These types of employment, however, are not the same. While the former requires a project as restrictively defined above, the duration of a fixed-term employment agreed upon by the parties may be any day certain, which is understood to be "that which must necessarily come although it may not be known when."[25] The decisive determinant in fixed-term employment is not the activity that the employee is called upon to perform but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship.[26] | |||||
|
2011-03-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Plainly, petitioner's scheme seeks to prevent employees from acquiring the status of regular employees. But the Court has already held that, where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods of employment have been imposed to preclude acquisition of security of tenure by the employee, they should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy and morals.[66] The primary standard to determine a regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of that activity to the business of the employer. Hence, the employment is also considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.[67] | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Philips Semiconductors (Phils.), Inc. v. Fadriquela,[20] we held that such a continuing need for respondents' services is sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of their services to petitioner's business.[21] Consequently, we find that respondents were regular employees defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code as those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of petitioner. | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee. The Constitution does not condone wrongdoing by an employee; nevertheless, it urges a moderation of the sanction that may be applied to him.[33] Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may have been committed by the worker ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment. For the Constitution guarantees the right of the workers to "security of tenure." The misery and pain attendant to the loss of jobs then could be avoided if there is acceptance of the view that under certain circumstances of the case the workers should not be deprived of their means of livelihood.[34] Indeed, the consistent rule is that if doubt exists between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.[35] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| There must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty.[40] Dismissal, without doubt, is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee.[41] Thus, where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe.[42] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| There must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty.[40] Dismissal, without doubt, is the ultimate penalty that can be meted to an employee.[41] Thus, where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe.[42] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Thus, there are two kinds of regular employees under the law: (1) those engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activities in which they are employed. [35] | |||||