Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DOUGLAS MILLARES v. NLRC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 184318 2014-02-12	ANTONIO E. UNICA v. ANSCOR SWIRE SHIP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
period of time.[8] Thus, when petitioner's contract ended on October 25, 2000, his employment is deemed automatically terminated, there being no mutually-agreed renewal or extension of the expired contract. However, petitioner is entitled to be paid his wages after the expiration of his contract until the vessel's arrival at a convenient port. Section 19 of the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels is clear on
	GR No. 166836 2013-09-04	SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES v. SEC. HERNANDO B. PEREZ BERSAMIN, J.
It is not tenable for San Miguel Properties to argue that the character of a violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 as malum prohibitum, by which criminal liability attached to BF Homes' directors and officers by the mere failure to deliver the TCTs, already rendered the suspension unsustainable.[34] The mere fact that an act or omission was malum prohibitum did not do away with the initiative inherent in every court to avoid an absurd result by means of rendering a reasonable interpretation and application of the procedural law. Indeed, the procedural law must always be given a reasonable construction to preclude absurdity in its application.[35] Hence, a literal application of the principle governing prejudicial questions is to be eschewed if such application would produce unjust and absurd results or unreasonable consequences.
	GR No. 202242 2012-07-17	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL MENDOZA, J.
Prompted by the clamor to rid the process of appointments to the Judiciary from political pressure and partisan activities,[5] the members of the Constitutional Commission saw the need to create a separate, competent and independent body to recommend nominees to the President. Thus, it conceived of a body representative of all the stakeholders in the judicial appointment process and called it the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). Its composition, term and functions are provided under Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution, viz: Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
	GR No. 190545 2010-11-22	JERRY M. FRANCISCO v. BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner's illness was already existing when he commenced his fourth contract of employment with respondents, hence, not compensable.[25] Given that the employment of a seafarer is governed by the contract he signs every time he is rehired and his employment is terminated when his contract expires,[26] petitioner's illness during his previous contract with respondents is deemed pre-existing during his subsequent contract.
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, the OSG emphasizes that OFWs and local workers differ in terms of the nature of their employment, such that their rights to monetary benefits must necessarily be treated differently. The OSG enumerates the essential elements that distinguish OFWs from local workers: first, while local workers perform their jobs within Philippine territory, OFWs perform their jobs for foreign employers, over whom it is difficult for our courts to acquire jurisdiction, or against whom it is almost impossible to enforce judgment; and second, as held in Coyoca v. National Labor Relations Commission[43] and Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission,[44] OFWs are contractual employees who can never acquire regular employment status, unlike local workers who are or can become regular employees. Hence, the OSG posits that there are rights and privileges exclusive to local workers, but not available to OFWs; that these peculiarities make for a reasonable and valid basis for the differentiated treatment under the subject clause of the money claims of OFWs who are illegally dismissed. Thus, the provision does not violate the equal protection clause nor Section 18, Article II of the Constitution.[45]
	GR NO. 148893 2006-07-12	SKIPPERS UNITED PACIFIC v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A seafarer is not a regular employee as defined in Article 280 of the Labor Code. Hence, he is not entitled to full backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as provided in Article 279 of the Labor Code.[25] Seafarers are contractual employees whose rights and obligations are governed primarily by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen, the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, and, more importantly, by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.[26] While the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen and the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment do not provide for the award of separation or termination pay,[27] Section 10 of R.A. 8042 provides for the award of money claims in cases of illegal dismissals, thus:Section 10. Money Claims. x x x
	GR NO. 160854 2006-03-03	BIG AA MANUFACTURER v. EUTIQUIO ANTONIO QUISUMBING, J
True, certain forms of employment require the performance of usual or desirable functions and exceed one year but do not necessarily result to regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code.[21] Some specific exceptions include project or seasonal employment. Yet, in this case, respondents cannot be considered project employees. Petitioner had neither shown that respondents were hired for a specific project the duration of which was determined at the time of their hiring nor identified the specific project or phase thereof for which respondents were hired.
	GR No. 157373 2004-07-27	PENTAGON INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING v. WILLIAM B. ADELANTAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Besides, in Millares v. NLRC,[11] we held that: . . . [I]t is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They can not be considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.