Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 179 views

    CASERES V. UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MINING CORPORATION (Labor Case)

    Uploaded by

    Dara Jubiar
    The petitioners were employees of Universal Robina, a sugar cane milling corporation, who were hired under contracts for specific projects or undertakings that were regularly renewed until 1999 when their contracts were not renewed. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were project employees, not regular employees, because their employment was fixed for specific projects of determined duration and their work depended on the availability of such contracts or projects. The fact that they were repeatedly rehired did not make them regular employees since the nature of their employment was tied to specific projects and not intended to be permanent.

    Copyright:

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

    CASERES V. UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MINING CORPORATION (Labor Case)

    Uploaded by

    Dara Jubiar
    179 views1 page
    The petitioners were employees of Universal Robina, a sugar cane milling corporation, who were hired under contracts for specific projects or undertakings that were regularly renewed until 1999 when their contracts were not renewed. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were project employees, not regular employees, because their employment was fixed for specific projects of determined duration and their work depended on the availability of such contracts or projects. The fact that they were repeatedly rehired did not make them regular employees since the nature of their employment was tied to specific projects and not intended to be permanent.

    Original Description:

    CASERES V. UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MINING CORPORATION 534 SCRA 356; GR 159343 (2007)

    Original Title

    CASERES V. UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MINING CORPORATION (Labor case)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners were employees of Universal Robina, a sugar cane milling corporation, who were hired under contracts for specific projects or undertakings that were regularly renewed until 1999 when their contracts were not renewed. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were project employees, not regular employees, because their employment was fixed for specific projects of determined duration and their work depended on the availability of such contracts or projects. The fact that they were repeatedly rehired did not make them regular employees since the nature of their employment was tied to specific projects and not intended to be permanent.

    Copyright:

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

    CASERES V. UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MINING CORPORATION (Labor Case)

    Uploaded by

    Dara Jubiar
    The petitioners were employees of Universal Robina, a sugar cane milling corporation, who were hired under contracts for specific projects or undertakings that were regularly renewed until 1999 when their contracts were not renewed. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were project employees, not regular employees, because their employment was fixed for specific projects of determined duration and their work depended on the availability of such contracts or projects. The fact that they were repeatedly rehired did not make them regular employees since the nature of their employment was tied to specific projects and not intended to be permanent.

    Copyright:

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

    CASERES V.

    UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MINING CORPORATION


    534 SCRA 356; GR 159343 (2007)

    FACTS: Caseres and the other petitioners were employees of Universal Robina, a corporation which is
    engaged in cane sugar milling business. At the start of their employment, the Petitioners were made to sign a
    Contract of Employment for Specific Project or Undertaking. Such contracts were renewed from time to
    time until May 1999, when they were informed that their contracts will not be renewed anymore. Hence, the
    Petitioners filed for Illegal Dismissal and other claims against the Universal Robina.

    ISSUE: WoN petitioners are regular employees. --- NO

    HELD: (Art. 280 of the Labor Code here)

    The principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee or a regular employee is
    whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination
    of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. A true project employee
    should be assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or determinable times, and be informed
    thereof at the time of hiring.

    The very nature of the terms and conditions of complainants’ hiring reveals that they were required to
    perform phases of special projects for a definite period and afterwhich their services are available to other
    farm owners. This is so because the planting of sugar does not entail a whole year operation, and utility works
    are comparatively small during the off-milling season.

    It must be noted that there were intervals in petitioners’ respective employment contracts, and that their work
    depended on the availability of such contracts or projects. Consequently, the employment of Universal
    Robina’s work force was not permanent but co-terminus with the projects to which the employees were
    assigned and from whose payrolls they were paid.

    The fact that petitioners were constantly re-hired does not ipso facto establish that they became regular
    employees. Their respective contracts with respondent show that there were intervals in their employment. In
    petitioner Caseres’s case, while his employment lasted from August 1989 to May 1999, the duration of his
    employment ranged from one day to several months at a time, and such successive employments were not
    continuous. With regard to petitioner Pael, his employment never lasted for more than a month at a time.
    These support the conclusion that they were indeed project employees, and since their work depended on the
    availability of such contracts or projects, necessarily the employment of respondent’s work force was not
    permanent but co-terminus with the projects to which they were assigned and from whose payrolls they were
    paid.

    Moreover, even if petitioners were repeatedly and successively re-hired, still it did 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. Further, the proviso in Article 280,
    stating that an employee who has rendered service for at least one (1) year shall be considered a regular
    employee, pertains to casual employees and not to project employees.

    You might also like