G.R. No. 162839. October 12, 2006

FACTS:

Natividad and Quejada’s employment were terminated by Innodata since the employment contract had expired which is effective for a fixed period of one (1) year. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for damages. Claiming that their job was necessary and desirable to the usual business of the company which is data processing/conversion and that their employment is regular pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code.

Petitioner contends that the regularity of the employment of respondents does not depend on whether their task may be necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. It argues that the use of fixed-term employment contracts has long been recognized by this Court.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a judgment in favor of the complainants – Natividad and Quejada to have been illegally dismissed by Innodata and ordered to reinstate them to their former position without loss of seniority rights, and to pay them backwages computed from the time they were illegally dismissed up to the date of the decision.

G.R. No. 158693. November 17, 2004

FACTS:

Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 19922 until February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work.

Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims. They asserted that they were dismissed because the private respondent refused to give them assignments unless they agreed to work on a “pakyaw” basis. They did not agree on this arrangement because it would mean losing benefits as Social Security System (SSS) members. They also claim that private respondent did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

The private respondent maintained that petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work. The petitioners are sent two letters to the last known addresses of the petitioners advising them to report for work. They also talk to Agabon by telephone to inform them of new assignment however did not report since they subcontracted for an installation work for another company.

G.R. No. 198656. September 8, 2014.

FACTS:

Nancy Montinola, an employee of PAL, were subjected to custom searches in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. During the search, 10 crews, including her were found of possession of food items.

PAL conducted an investigation. PAL’s Cabin Services Sub-Department required Montinola to comment on the incident. Montinola gave a handwritten explanation, stating that she did not take anything from the aircraft and committed to give her full cooperation should there be any further inquiries on the matter.  She was furnished by a notice of administrative charge. During the Clarificatory hearings, Montinola requested for proper notice of the acts violative of PAL’s Code of Discipline. Instead of giving proper notice, PAL threatened that she would be waiving her right to a clarificatory hearing if she insisted on her request. PAL failed to specify her participation in the alleged pilferage. PAL’s Management found Montinola guilty of 11 violations of the company’s Code of Discipline and Government Regulation. She was meted with suspension for one (1) year without pay.

G.R. No. 170181             June 26, 2008

FACTS:

Respondents Felicito Ibañez, Aligwas Carolino, Elmer Gacula, Enrique Dagotdot, Ruel Calda, and four other co-workers filed a complaint before the NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and full backwages against petitioners.  The group alleged that the contract they have is good for three months, subject to automatic renewal if there is no notice of termination from Hanjin, and that the contract would automatically terminate upon the completion of the project. Respondents stated that they are regular employees since their tasks were usual and necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of HANJIN.

Hanjin maintained that respondents were hired as project employees for the construction of the LRT/MRT Line 2 Package 2 and 3 Project. HANJIN and respondents purportedly executed contracts of employment, in which it was clearly stipulated that the respondents were to be hired as project employees for a period of only three months, but that the contracts may be renewed

Petitioners failed to furnish the Labor Arbiter a copy of said contracts of employment.

The Labor Arbiter found merit in the respondents’ complaint and declared that they were regular employees who had been dismissed without just and valid causes and without due process.