Scribd
Upload
224 views1 page

Phil Geothermal vs. NLRC

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.

Uploaded by

rhod leyson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
224 views1 page

Phil Geothermal vs. NLRC

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.

Uploaded by

rhod leyson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 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