Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The Provisions of

    Uploaded by

    Cham Vasquez
    This document summarizes two cases regarding whether employees should be considered regular or casual. In the first case, the court ruled that a reliever nurse named Alipio, who had worked intermittently for over 4 years, should be considered a regular employee based on the one year service requirement in the labor code. In the second case, the court ruled that doctors and dentists who had signed annual retention contracts for 15 years with a school should be considered regular employees, as the repeated contract renewals, necessary work performed, and school's control over them indicated a regular employment. Both cases found that labor code provisions take precedence over contract terms in determining employment status.

    Copyright:

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

    ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The Provisions of

    Uploaded by

    Cham Vasquez
    92 views2 pages
    This document summarizes two cases regarding whether employees should be considered regular or casual. In the first case, the court ruled that a reliever nurse named Alipio, who had worked intermittently for over 4 years, should be considered a regular employee based on the one year service requirement in the labor code. In the second case, the court ruled that doctors and dentists who had signed annual retention contracts for 15 years with a school should be considered regular employees, as the repeated contract renewals, necessary work performed, and school's control over them indicated a regular employment. Both cases found that labor code provisions take precedence over contract terms in determining employment status.

    Original Title

    47-48

    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 two cases regarding whether employees should be considered regular or casual. In the first case, the court ruled that a reliever nurse named Alipio, who had worked intermittently for over 4 years, should be considered a regular employee based on the one year service requirement in the labor code. In the second case, the court ruled that doctors and dentists who had signed annual retention contracts for 15 years with a school should be considered regular employees, as the repeated contract renewals, necessary work performed, and school's control over them indicated a regular employment. Both cases found that labor code provisions take precedence over contract terms in determining employment status.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    92 views2 pages

    ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The Provisions of

    Uploaded by

    Cham Vasquez
    This document summarizes two cases regarding whether employees should be considered regular or casual. In the first case, the court ruled that a reliever nurse named Alipio, who had worked intermittently for over 4 years, should be considered a regular employee based on the one year service requirement in the labor code. In the second case, the court ruled that doctors and dentists who had signed annual retention contracts for 15 years with a school should be considered regular employees, as the repeated contract renewals, necessary work performed, and school's control over them indicated a regular employment. Both cases found that labor code provisions take precedence over contract terms in determining employment status.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CHAM xxx, 

    any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,


    Case No. 47 whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a
    CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES – Regular and Casual Employees regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
    The Peninsula Manila v. Alipio employed and his employment shall continue while such activity
    FACTS exists. xxx
    1. Petitioner hotel operates a clinic 24 hours a day and employs
    regular nurses.  The hotel also engages the services of reliever Thus, an employment is deemed regular when the activities performed
    nurses who substitute for the regular nurses when they are off- by the employee are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business
    duty or absent of the employer. However, any employee who has rendered at least one
    year of service, even though intermittent, is deemed regular with respect
    2. Alipio was hired as a reliever nurse. After about four years of to the activity performed and while such activity exists
    employment, she inquired why she was not receiving her 13 th
    month pay In this case, records show that Alipio's services were engaged by the
    hotel intermittently from 1993 up to 1998. 
    3. Petitioner paid her 13th month pay only for 1997, but not for the
    previous years. In any case, since she had rendered more than one year of intermittent
    service as a reliever nurse at the hotel, she had become a regular
    4. Subsequently, Alipio was informed that she could only report to employee as early as 1994. Lastly, per the hotel's own Certification dated
    work after she met up with the General Manager. Alipio was April 22, 1997, she was already a "regular staff nurse" until her
    asked regarding her pay slip vouchers, and Alipio informed that dismissal.
    she made copies of the vouchers because petitioner would not
    give her copies. Being a regular employee, her services may be terminated only upon
    compliance with the substantive and procedural requisites for a valid
    5. The GM was peeved because Alipio was allegedly not entitled to dismissal, which are (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes
    get copies of her pay slip vouchers. He, then, dismissed her. provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (2) the employee must be
    given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
    ISSUE
    Whether or not Alipio should be considered a regular employee CHAM
    Case No. 48
    RULING/MAIN POINT CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES – Regular and Casual Employees
    Samonte v. La Salle Greenhills
    Yes. Article 280 of the Labor Code provides: FACTS
    1. From 1989 and for 15 years thereafter, respondent has
    ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions of contracted the services of medical professionals for its health
    written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and service team (HST). They signed uniform one-page Contracts
    regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment of Retainer each academic year
    shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been
    engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or 2. The contract stipulated that a) retainer is only temporary in
    desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,xxx character and, shall be solely and exclusively limited to the
    project, b) retainer shall, without need of any notice to the
    retainer, automatically cease on the expiration date, and c) at
    any time prior to said expiration or completion date, employment contracts, does not define the employment status of a
    petitioner, upon prior written notice, may terminate this person. Such is defined and prescribed by law find not by what the
    contract should the retainer fail in any way to perform his parties. say it should be. Equally important to consider is that a contract
    assigned job of employment is impressed with public interest such that labor
    contracts must yield to the common good. Thus, provisions of applicable
    3. After 15 years, petitioners did not renew the said contract statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the parties are not at
    because they wanted to employ full-time doctors and liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of
    dentists labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other.

    4. Petitioners allege that they were illegally dismissed Further, a fixed-term contract is an employment contract, the repeated
    renewals of which make for a regular employment.
    5. Respondent avers that they were independent contractors
    who were retained by reason of their medical skill and that
    respondent did not have any control over how they
    performed their duties. They were also paid retainer fees,
    not salaries

    ISSUE
    Whether or not petitioners are regular employees

    RULING/MAIN POINT
    Yes. The Contracts of Retainer signed by petitioners were prepared by
    respondent alone. Petitioners were still not on equal footing in
    negotiating it. They obviously did not want to lose their jobs that they
    had stayed in for 15 years. While vague in its sparseness, the Contract of
    Retainer very clearly spelled out that respondent had the power of
    control over petitioners.

    The (1) repeated renewal of petitioners' contract for fifteen years, (2)
    the necessity of the work performed by petitioners, and (3) the existence
    of respondent's power of control over the means and method pursued
    by petitioners in the performance of their job, point that petitioners
    attained regular employment

    A fixed-term employment is allowable under the Labor Code only if the


    term was voluntarily and knowingly entered by the parties who must
    have dealt with each other on equal terms not one exercising moral
    dominance over the other.

    Price, et. al. v. Innodata Corp., teaches us, from the wording of Article 280
    of the Labor Code, that the nomenclature of contracts, especially

    You might also like