Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    Phil Geothermal vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    rhod leyson
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether employees of Philippine Geothermal, Inc. could be considered regular employees despite being hired on individual contracts that were regularly renewed for periods ranging from 3 months to 5 years. The Court held that while the employees were hired on contractual terms, the intent and spirit of employment law was for their status to change to regular after one year of continuous service. Recognizing them only as contractual would allow employers to deny employees security and permanence in their jobs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Phil Geothermal vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    rhod leyson
    97 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether employees of Philippine Geothermal, Inc. could be considered regular employees despite being hired on individual contracts that were regularly renewed for periods ranging from 3 months to 5 years. The Court held that while the employees were hired on contractual terms, the intent and spirit of employment law was for their status to change to regular after one year of continuous service. Recognizing them only as contractual would allow employers to deny employees security and permanence in their jobs.

    Original Description:

    Phil Geothermal vs. NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether employees of Philippine Geothermal, Inc. could be considered regular employees despite being hired on individual contracts that were regularly renewed for periods ranging from 3 months to 5 years. The Court held that while the employees were hired on contractual terms, the intent and spirit of employment law was for their status to change to regular after one year of continuous service. Recognizing them only as contractual would allow employers to deny employees security and permanence in their jobs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    97 views1 page

    Phil Geothermal vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    rhod leyson
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether employees of Philippine Geothermal, Inc. could be considered regular employees despite being hired on individual contracts that were regularly renewed for periods ranging from 3 months to 5 years. The Court held that while the employees were hired on contractual terms, the intent and spirit of employment law was for their status to change to regular after one year of continuous service. Recognizing them only as contractual would allow employers to deny employees security and permanence in their jobs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC.

    vs.
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TEODULO C. CUEBILLAS, ARMANDO CILOT,
    MARIANO CORULLO, YOLANDA CAL, EFREN CLERIGO, FELICISSIMO VARGAS, et al
    G.R. Nos. 82643-67 August 30, 1990
    Paras, J.

    FACTS:

    Private respondents are employees of herein petitioner occupying various positions ranging
    from carpenter to Clerk II who had worked with petitioner company under individual contracts,
    categorized as contractual employment, for a period ranging from fifteen (15) days to three (3)
    months. These contracts were regularly renewed to the extent that individual private
    respondents had rendered service from three (3) to five (5) years until 1983 and 1984 when
    petitioner started terminating their employment by not renewing their individual contracts.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not private respondents may be considered regular and permanent employees due
    to their length of service in the company despite the fact that their employment is on
    contractual basis.

    HELD:
                      
    Yes. While the actual regularization of these employees entails the mechanical act of issuing
    regular appointment papers and compliance with such other operating procedures, as may be
    adopted by the employer, it is more in keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to rule that
    the status of regular employment attaches to the casual employee on the day immediately after
    the end of his first year of service. It is not difficult to see that to uphold the contractual
    arrangement between the employer and the employee would in effect be to permit employers
    to avoid the necessity of hiring regular or permanent employees indefinitely on a temporary or
    casual status, thus to deny them security of tenure in their jobs.

    You might also like