Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 105 views

    2 FVR V Seva (Oct 22, 2014) Digest

    Uploaded by

    Melgen
    This case involves 28 employees who were dismissed from their jobs providing janitorial services. The Supreme Court held: 1) The employees were regular employees of the service contractor, not project employees, as their work was necessary to the contractor's business and they had served for over a year. 2) The employment contracts signed halfway through the project were voidable as they were used to justify dismissal and prevent the employees from gaining regular status. 3) The dismissal of the regular employees without just cause was illegal. However, the officers of the contractor were not solidarily liable as malice was not proven.

    Copyright:

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

    2 FVR V Seva (Oct 22, 2014) Digest

    Uploaded by

    Melgen
    105 views2 pages
    This case involves 28 employees who were dismissed from their jobs providing janitorial services. The Supreme Court held: 1) The employees were regular employees of the service contractor, not project employees, as their work was necessary to the contractor's business and they had served for over a year. 2) The employment contracts signed halfway through the project were voidable as they were used to justify dismissal and prevent the employees from gaining regular status. 3) The dismissal of the regular employees without just cause was illegal. However, the officers of the contractor were not solidarily liable as malice was not proven.

    Original Description:

    thanks

    Original Title

    2 Fvr v Seva (Oct 22, 2014) Digest

    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 case involves 28 employees who were dismissed from their jobs providing janitorial services. The Supreme Court held: 1) The employees were regular employees of the service contractor, not project employees, as their work was necessary to the contractor's business and they had served for over a year. 2) The employment contracts signed halfway through the project were voidable as they were used to justify dismissal and prevent the employees from gaining regular status. 3) The dismissal of the regular employees without just cause was illegal. However, the officers of the contractor were not solidarily liable as malice was not proven.

    Copyright:

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

    2 FVR V Seva (Oct 22, 2014) Digest

    Uploaded by

    Melgen
    This case involves 28 employees who were dismissed from their jobs providing janitorial services. The Supreme Court held: 1) The employees were regular employees of the service contractor, not project employees, as their work was necessary to the contractor's business and they had served for over a year. 2) The employment contracts signed halfway through the project were voidable as they were used to justify dismissal and prevent the employees from gaining regular status. 3) The dismissal of the regular employees without just cause was illegal. However, the officers of the contractor were not solidarily liable as malice was not proven.

    Copyright:

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

    FVR SKILLS AND SERVICES EXPONENTS (SKILLEX), et. Al. v. JOVERT SEVA, et. al.

    Labor Article 294 : Regular and Casual Employment)


    FACTS:

     Jovert and 27 others: employees of FVR


     FVR: independent contractor engaged in business of providing janitorial and other manpower services to its clients
     As early as 1998, some of respondents have already been employed by FVR as janitors, supervisor, leadmen, service crew,
    sanitation aides, or janitor aides
     March 21, 2008: FVR entered into a Contract of Janitorial Service (service contract) with Robinsons Land Corporation
    o FVR shall supply janitorial, manpower and sanitation services to Robinsons Place Ermita Mall for one year (JAN 1
    TO DEC 31 08)
     Halfway through service contract, FVR asked Jovert et. al. to excecute individual contracts which stipulated that their
    respective employments shall end on Dec. 31, 2008.
     FVR and Robinsons did not extend their contract of janitorial services. FVR dismissed the respondents – they were project
    employees whose duration of employment was dependent on service contract
     Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC.
    o Argument: they were regular employees, cannot be dismissed without just cause.
    o The respondents also asked for payment of their unpaid wage differential, 13th month pay differential, service
    incentive leave pay, holiday pay and separation pay.
     LA: not regular employees, but project employees whose employment was dependent on the petitioner's service contract with
    Robinsons. Since Service Contract was not renewed, employment contracts must also be terminated.
    o Respondents appealed to the NLRC
     NLRC: reversed LA ruling; regular employees; had been employed for more than 1 yr, some as early as 1998; no just cause
    for dismissal

     CA: dismissed the petitioner's certiorari petition and affirmed the NLRC's decision.
    o Work of respondents were necessary or desirable to FVR’s business of providing janitorial, manpower and sanitation
    services to clients
    o Continuing need for services for more than 1 year – regular, not project employees
    o Fixed term employment contracts has NO BINDING EFFECT
     Contracts were used to justify dismissal and prevent respondents from attaining regular status
     Respondents were only made to sign when it became clear that service contract with Rob would not be
    renewed
     Respondens were threatened that they would not be given their salaries if they did not sign
     Fulgencio Rana (president) and Monina Burgos (general manager) of FVR are solidarily liable with FVR for
    payment of monetary awards – acted in bad faith
     CA to SC – Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) by the petitioner.

    ISSUE
    1. WON JOvert et.al. are regular employees of FVR2.
    2. WON fixed term contract belatedly executed is valid
    3. WON respondents were illegally dismissed
    4. WON officers of FVR are solidarily liable

    SUPREME COURT HELD:


    1. Respondents REGULAR EMPLOYEES, not project employees
    Art. 294 (280) LC
    Two kinds of regular employees
    1. Engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in usual business or trade of ER
    2. Casual employees who became regular after one year of service, whether continuous or broken (only with respect to activity
    for which they have been hired)
    Project employee
    One whose employment was fixed for a specific project or undertaking, whose completion or termination had been determined at the
    time of engagement

    Court used REASONABLE CONNECTION test: between activity performed by EE and ER’s business or trade
     Respondents work are necessary or desirable to FBR’s business
     Were already employed even before service contract

    D.O. 18-02. Contractor or subcontractor is considered as employer of contractual employee for purposes of enforcing provisions of LC
    and other social legislation
    Grants contractual employees all the rights and privileges due a regular employee
     Safe and healthful working conditions
     Labor standards such as service incentive leave, rest days, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay and separation
    pay
     Social security and welfare benefits
     Self-organization, collective bargaining and peaceful concerted action
     Security of tenure
    THEREFORE: although respondents were assigned as contractual employees to the clients of FVR, under the law, they remain to be
    petitioner’s REGULAR employees, who are entitled to all the rights and benefits of regular employment

    2. Employment contracts are VOIDABLE


    If FVR really intended respondents to be project employees, contracts should have been executed at time of hiring, not when service
    contract with Rob was about to end. It is a ploy to evade right to security of tenure
    Respondents were threated nonpayment of salaries – intimidation – voidable

    3. Respondents ILLEGALLY DISMISSED


    Dismissal must comply with substantive and procedural requirements od due process
    SUbstantitve – just or authorized cause
    Procedural – twin notice and hearing requirements

    Respondents being regular employees, illegal dismissal took place when FVR failed to comply
    That resondents were absorved by Rob’s new contractors immaterial. FVR cannot excape liability by relying on goodwill of others

    Court cannot give credence to FVR’s assertion that under DO 18-02 Sec 10, respondents not entitled to separation pay because
    employment was terminated due to completion of project
    Sec 7 treats contractual employees as the independent contractor’s regular employees for purposes of enforcing the LC and other
    social legislation laws.

    4. Officers not solidarily liable


    Respondents were not able to clearly show the definite participation of Burgos and Rana in their illegal dismissal – malice and bad faith
    not proven

    You might also like