Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 433 views

    Philips Semiconductors Phils. Inc. vs. Eloisa Fadriquela

    Uploaded by

    Johnde Martinez
    1) Philips Semiconductors employed Eloisa Fadriquela through 5 consecutive contracts over her employment period and her duties remained the same. 2) By law, Fadriquela attained regular employment status due to the continuing need for her services in the same position over time. 3) The court ruled that Fadriquela was a regular, not contractual, employee entitled to security of tenure, as her long-term employment showed the necessity of her role to the company's operations.

    Copyright:

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

    Philips Semiconductors Phils. Inc. vs. Eloisa Fadriquela

    Uploaded by

    Johnde Martinez
    433 views4 pages
    1) Philips Semiconductors employed Eloisa Fadriquela through 5 consecutive contracts over her employment period and her duties remained the same. 2) By law, Fadriquela attained regular employment status due to the continuing need for her services in the same position over time. 3) The court ruled that Fadriquela was a regular, not contractual, employee entitled to security of tenure, as her long-term employment showed the necessity of her role to the company's operations.

    Original Description:

    Labor 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?

    1) Philips Semiconductors employed Eloisa Fadriquela through 5 consecutive contracts over her employment period and her duties remained the same. 2) By law, Fadriquela attained regular employment status due to the continuing need for her services in the same position over time. 3) The court ruled that Fadriquela was a regular, not contractual, employee entitled to security of tenure, as her long-term employment showed the necessity of her role to the company's operations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    433 views4 pages

    Philips Semiconductors Phils. Inc. vs. Eloisa Fadriquela

    Uploaded by

    Johnde Martinez
    1) Philips Semiconductors employed Eloisa Fadriquela through 5 consecutive contracts over her employment period and her duties remained the same. 2) By law, Fadriquela attained regular employment status due to the continuing need for her services in the same position over time. 3) The court ruled that Fadriquela was a regular, not contractual, employee entitled to security of tenure, as her long-term employment showed the necessity of her role to the company's operations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTORS (PHILS.), INC. vs.

    ELOISA FADRIQUELA
    G.R. No. 141717             April 14, 2004
    CALLEJO, SR., J.:

    FACTS: Philips Semiconductors, petitioner, is a domestic corporation engaged in the


    production and assembly of semiconductors such as power devices, RF modules,
    CATV modules, RF and metal transistors and glass diods. It caters to domestic and
    foreign corporations that manufacture computers, telecommunications equipment and
    cars. Aside from contractual employees, the petitioner employed 1,029 regular workers.
    The employees were subjected to periodic performance appraisal based on output,
    quality, attendance and work attitude. One was required to obtain a performance rating
    of at least 3.0 for the period covered by the performance appraisal to maintain good
    standing as an employee. Eloisa Fadriquela, respondent, during her 5 consecutive
    contracts, got the following ratings: 3.15, 3.8, 3.4, and 2.8. The reason for her failed
    mark on the last contract was her absences. She was then asked to explain such
    absences but she failed to do the same. Subsequently, respondent’s supervisor
    recommended that her employment be terminated due to habitual absenteeism. Thus,
    her contract of employment was no longer renewed.
    Respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. On the other hand, petitioner
    contends that respondent was not dismissed; her contract was merely expired. The
    Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their decision on the CBA between the petitioner
    and the labor union which provides that a contractual employee would only be
    considered a regular employee if he has completed 17 months of service and a
    performance rating of at least 3.0. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but
    the NLRC denied the same. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the NLRC.
    Hence, this petition.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Eloisa Fadriquela is a contractual employee of the company.
    RULING: No, the original contract of employment had been extended or renewed four
    times, to the same position, with the same chores. Such a continuing need for the
    services of the respondent is sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of
    her services to the petitioner’s business. By operation of law, then, the respondent had
    attained the regular status of her employment with the petitioner, and is thus entitled to
    security of tenure as provided for in Article 279 of the Labor Code.
    The two kinds of regular employees under the law are (1) those engaged to perform
    activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
    employer; and (2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of
    service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activities in which they are
    employed. The primary standard to determine a regular employment is the reasonable
    connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the
    business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary
    or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. If the employee has been
    performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or
    merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its
    performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity
    to the business of the employer. Hence, the employment is also considered regular, but
    only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. The law does not
    provide the qualification that the employee must first be issued a regular appointment or
    must be declared as such before he can acquire a regular employee status.
    The limited period specified in petitioner’s employment contract having been imposed
    precisely to circumvent the constitutional guarantee on security of tenure should,
    therefore, be struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy or morals. To
    uphold the contractual arrangement would, in effect, permit the former to avoid hiring
    permanent or regular employees by simply hiring them on a temporary or casual basis,
    thereby violating the employee’s security of tenure in their jobs.
     

    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