Yahoo Web Search

Search results

1. • • Thus, for an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employee was engaged for such project.
     www.projectjurisprudence.com › 2021 › 08

     Project-based employee v. Regular ... - PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

2. People also ask

   Are alleged projects'specific undertakings' contemplated by law?

   • Unmistakably, the alleged projects stated in the employment contracts were either too vague or imprecise to be considered as the 'specific undertaking' contemplated by law.

   G.R. No. 239622 - The Lawphil Project

   lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_239622_2021.html

   See all results for this question

   What is a sub-strand of jurisprudence?

   • However, there is a sub-strand of jurisprudence where, despite apparent similarity with the facts of the foregoing cases, and notwithstanding the existence of the foregoing doctrines in jurisprudence, the project employee was deemed never to have acquired regular status.

   G.R. No. 239622 - The Lawphil Project

   lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_239622_2021.html

   See all results for this question

   Did petitioners' work for respondents end by the supposed completion of a project?

   • This matter only shows that petitioners' work for respondents did not end by the supposed completion of a project because respondents coordinated with and notified them that their services would still be necessary for respondents.

   G.R. No. 237020 - The Lawphil Project

   lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/jul2019/gr_237020_2019.html

   See all results for this question

3. lawphil.net › judjuris › judjurisPhilippine Jurisprudence - The LawPhil Project

   lawphil.net › judjuris › judjuris

   • Cached

   The Lawphil Project. Click on the year to read the full text of the decision.

4. lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2019G.R. No. 237020 - The Lawphil Project

   lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2019

   • Cached

   On the other hand, respondents counter that RSCI substantially proved that petitioners worked with the company for various short-term projects and the duration of each was communicated to them based on the summary of petitioners' project assignments which contained information as to the respective projects where employees were assigned and the ...

5. lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2021G.R. No. 239622 - The Lawphil Project

   lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2021

   • Cached

   Jun 21, 2022 · The Court resolves the interlocking issues of: (1) whether Carpio is a project-based or regular employee of Modair; and (2) whether Carpio was illegally dismissed. Ruling. The Court partially grants the Petition for Review on Certiorari, resolving the first issue in favor of, and the second issue against, Carpio.

6. lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2017G.R. No. 208936 - The Lawphil Project

   lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2017

   • Cached

   The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation. HERMA SHIPYARD, INC, and MR. HERMINIO ESGUERRA, vs. DANILO OLIVEROS, JOJIT BASA ARNEL SABAL, CAMILO OLIVEROS, ROBERT NARIO, FREDERJCK CATIG, RICARDO ONTALAN, RUDEN DELGADO, SEGUNDO LABOSTA, EXEQUIEL OLlVERIA, OSCAR TIROL and ROMEO TRINIDAD.

7. lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2021Year 2021 Philippine Jurisprudence - The Lawphil Project

   lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2021

   The Lawphil Project - Year 2021 Supreme Court Decisions

8. www.ww.lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2020Philippine Jurisprudence - June 2020 - The Lawphil Project

   www.ww.lawphil.net › judjuris › juri2020

   • Cached

   The Lawphil Project. CASE NUMBER CASE TITLE; G.R. No. 240778 June 30, 2020 Rolando S. Gregorio vs. Commission on Audit and Department of Foreign Affairs : G.R. No. 246674