Textually, the provision that: “NA ako ay sumasang-ayon na
maglingkod at gumawa ng mga gawain sang-ayon sa patakarang “por viaje” na
magmumula sa pagalis sa Navotas papunta sa pangisdaan at pagbabalik sa pondohan
ng lantsa sa Navotas, Metro Manila” is
for a fixed period of employment. In
the context, however, of the facts that: (1) the respondents were doing tasks
necessarily to Lynvil’s fishing business with positions ranging from captain of
the vessel to bodegero;
(2) after the end of a trip, they will again be hired for another trip with new
contracts; and (3) this arrangement continued for more than ten years, the
clear intention is to go around the security of tenure of the respondents as
regular employees.
The same set of circumstances indicate
clearly enough that it was the need for a continued source of income that
forced the employees’ acceptance of the “por viaje” provision (Lynvil Fishing
Enterprises, Inc. and/or Rosendo S. De Borja Vs. Andres G. Ariola, et al., G.R. No.
181974. February 1, 2012).
No comments:
Post a Comment