Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    G.R. No. 162472 July 28, 2005 KAY PRODUCTS, INC. And/or KAY LEE, Petitioners, Honorable Court of Appeals Et Al Callejo, SR., J.: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    The employees of KPI were planning to form a union when management learned of this. Management then transferred the employees to another company, GRMSI, having them sign resignation letters. The employees continued working at KPI for a few months before being transferred again. Seventy-three employees filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, underpayment, and failure to classify them as regular employees. The employees were later ordered to take unpaid leave and then told their employment had ceased. While the labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaints, the Court of Appeals ruled the employees were regular employees as they had worked over a year, and could only be terminated for just cause. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 162472 July 28, 2005 KAY PRODUCTS, INC. And/or KAY LEE, Petitioners, Honorable Court of Appeals Et Al Callejo, SR., J.: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    55 views2 pages
    The employees of KPI were planning to form a union when management learned of this. Management then transferred the employees to another company, GRMSI, having them sign resignation letters. The employees continued working at KPI for a few months before being transferred again. Seventy-three employees filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, underpayment, and failure to classify them as regular employees. The employees were later ordered to take unpaid leave and then told their employment had ceased. While the labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaints, the Court of Appeals ruled the employees were regular employees as they had worked over a year, and could only be terminated for just cause. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding.

    Original Title

    Kay

    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 employees of KPI were planning to form a union when management learned of this. Management then transferred the employees to another company, GRMSI, having them sign resignation letters. The employees continued working at KPI for a few months before being transferred again. Seventy-three employees filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, underpayment, and failure to classify them as regular employees. The employees were later ordered to take unpaid leave and then told their employment had ceased. While the labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaints, the Court of Appeals ruled the employees were regular employees as they had worked over a year, and could only be terminated for just cause. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 162472 July 28, 2005 KAY PRODUCTS, INC. And/or KAY LEE, Petitioners, Honorable Court of Appeals Et Al Callejo, SR., J.: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    The employees of KPI were planning to form a union when management learned of this. Management then transferred the employees to another company, GRMSI, having them sign resignation letters. The employees continued working at KPI for a few months before being transferred again. Seventy-three employees filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, underpayment, and failure to classify them as regular employees. The employees were later ordered to take unpaid leave and then told their employment had ceased. While the labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaints, the Court of Appeals ruled the employees were regular employees as they had worked over a year, and could only be terminated for just cause. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    162472 July 28, 2005


    KAY PRODUCTS, INC. and/or KAY LEE, Petitioners,
    vs.
    HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS et al

    CALLEJO, SR., J.:

    FACTS:

    The employees of KPI was planning to form a union. When the management of KPI got wind of
    the plan to, it called a meeting to announce that the said employees were to be transferred to
    the Gerrico Resources & Manpower Services, Inc. (GRMSI).

    KPI directed all employees to sign resignation letters preparatory to their employment with
    GRMSI. Thus, the employees submitted handwritten letters of resignation.

    The employees continued to report for work in the KPI factory for a couple of months but were
    then transferred again to RCVJ due to dissolution of Gerrico.

    Seventy-three (73) employees, together with the Kay Products Employees Union-PTGWO, filed
    a Complaint of unfair labor practice (ULP), underpayment of salaries and service incentive leave
    pay, and failure to classify them as regular employees.

    Subsequently the employees were ordered to take a 2-week leave from work without pay. After
    the 2-week leave, the employees tried to report for work but were told that they have already
    ceased to be employees of KPI. The employees amended their complaint to illegal dismissal.

    The Labor Arbiter dismissed the charge of illegal dismissal and ULP. NLRC affirmed the Labor
    Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals however, reversed the decision of NLRC it ruled that
    the private respondents were regular employees, since they were performing activities normally
    necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of KPI for more than a year until their
    severance from work. And as regular employees, they may only be terminated for just and
    authorized causes under the Labor Code.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the private respondents are regular employees

    HELD:

    Article 280 of the Labor Code provides:


    The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral
    agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee
    has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
    business or trade of the employer, except where 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 or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in
    nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

    An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph:


    Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such
    service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the
    activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.

    In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that the CA was correct in declaring that the private
    respondents had attained the status of regular employees of petitioner KPI. It must be stressed
    that at the time of their dismissal, they had been working for the petitioners for more than one
    (1) year.

    While the actual regularization of the 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 worker on the day immediately after the end of his
    first year of service. To rule otherwise, and to instead make their regularization dependent on
    the happening of some contingency or the fulfillment of certain requirements, is to impose a
    burden on the employee which is not sanctioned by law.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy