This pronouncement must be put into context. In Meteoro , the respondent (corporation) claimed that the petitioners were not precluded from working outside the service contracts they had entered into with the respondent and that there were instances when petitioners abandoned their service contracts…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 244752
- Promulgated: 2024-02-14
- Ponente: ZALAMEDA, J.
Keywords
Rule 45 Rules of Court, Article 128 Labor Code, Department Order No. 18-A, Series of 2011 (DO 18-A), Department Order No. 174-2017 (DO 174-2017), Article 106 Labor Code, Article 295 Labor Code, Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil, Allegation is not Evidence, Substantial Evidence Rule (Administrative Proceedings), Labor Law, Labor-only Contracting, Regularization of Employees, Employer-Employee Relationship, Visitorial and Enforcement Powers of DOLE, Monetary Awards for Labor Standards Violations, Petition for Review on Certiorari, Grave Abuse of Discretion, Substantial Evidence, Certiorari, Remand