#BarNiJLo2024 The complainants in this case claimed to be regular employees of the company since they performed services necessary and desirable to its business. Was this stand upheld? 
 
Tuppil, Jr. v. LBP Service Corp., G.R. No. 228407, 10 June 2020.

#BarNiJLo2024 The complainants in this case claimed to be regular employees of the company since they performed services necessary and desirable to its business. Was this stand upheld? Tuppil, Jr. v. LBP Service Corp., G.R. No. 228407, 10 June 2020.

Episode 64: Nothing Contradictory Between a Definite Employment Period and the Nature of the Employee’s Duties

Lecture podcast on Philippine Labor Law and Jurisprudence for law students and Bar examinees. Paulino Ungos III is a lawyer, law professor, and co-author of Labor Law books published by Rex Bookstore.

Share Episode 64: Nothing Contradictory Between a Definite Employment Period and the Nature of the Employee’s Duties

Sign up to save your podcasts

Episode 64: Nothing Contradictory Between a Definite Employment Period and the Nature of the Employee’s Duties

Episode 64: Nothing Contradictory Between a Definite Employment Period and the Nature of the Employee’s Duties