labor case digest compilation 06 (oct 26) mnl terminal - mbtc

7/25/2019 Labor Case Digest Compilation 06 (Oct 26) Mnl Terminal - MBTC

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-case-digest-compilation-06-oct-26-mnl-terminal-mbtc 1/24

Manila Terminal Company, Inc. vs. Court Of Industrial RelationsNo. L4148. July 16, 1952

Facts: On September 1, 1945, Herein petitioner undertook the rr !tre!er"i#e in !ome o$ the pier! in % nil &! 'ort (re t the re)ue!t nd under the #ontrol o$ the *.S. (rmy. 'etitioner hired !ome + men ! - t#hmen on12 hour !hi$t! t #ompen! tion o$ '+. per d y $or the d y !hi$t nd '6.per d y $or the ni ht !hi$t. On /ebru ry 1, 1946, the petitioner be n the

po!t- r oper tion o$ the rr !tre !er"i#e t the pre!ent t the re)ue!t ndunder the #ontrol o$ the 0ure u o$ u!tom!, by "irtue o$ #ontr #t enteredinto -ith 'hilippine o"ernment. 3he - t#hmen o$ the petitioner #ontinued inthe !er"i#e -ith number o$ !ub!titution nd ddition!, their ! l rie! h "inbeen r i!ed durin the month o$ /ebru ry to '4. per d y $or the d y!hi$t

nd '6.25 per d y $or the ni ht!hi$t.

L ter, !ome o$ the member! o$ the % nil 3ermin l elie$ nd %utu l (id (!!o#i tion, !ent letter to the ep rtment o$ L bor, re)ue!tin th t theo"ertime p y be in"e!ti ted, but nothin - ! done by the ep rtment. On% y 2 , 194 the petitioner in!tituted the !y!tem o$ !tri#t 8 7 hour !hi$t!. OnJuly 28, 194 % nil (id (!!o#i tion $iled n mended petition -ith the ourto$ ndu!tri l el tion! pr yin , mon other!, th t petitioner be ordered top y it! - t#hmen or poli#e $or#e o"ertime p y $rom the #ommen#ement o$ their employment.

3he # !e there $ter lle"i ted in -hi#h Jud e L ntin ruled

1.: 3he de#i!ion under re"ie- !hould be $$irmed in !o $ r it r nt!#ompen! tion $or o"ertime on re ul r d y! durin the period $rom the d te o$ entr n#e to duty to % y 24, 194 , !u#h #ompen! tion to #on!i!t o$ the

mount th t #orre!pond! to the $our hour!& o"ertime t the re ul r r te ndn ddition l mount o$ 25 per #ent thereo$.

2.: (! the #ompen! tion $or -ork done on Sund y! nd le l holid y!, thepetitioner !hould p y it! - t#hmen the #ompen! tion th t #orre!pond! to theo"ertime ;in e<#e!! o$ 8 hour!: t the re ul r r te only.+.: 3he - t#hmen re not entitled to ni ht di$$erenti l p y $or p !t !er"i#e,

nd there$ore the de#i!ion !hould be re"er!ed.

Hen#e, thi! petition, #ontendin th t the reement under -hi#h it! poli#e$or#e -ere p id #ert in !pe#i$i# - e! $or 12 hour !hi$t!, in#luded o"ertime#ompen! tion.

Issue: =hether or not the reement under -hi#h it! poli#e $or#e -ere p id#ert in !pe#i$i# - e! $or 12 hour !hi$t!, in#lude! the o"ertime#ompen! tion>

Held: No. 3he ourt ruled th t in time! o$ #ute employment, re rdle!! o$ it! term! nd #ondition!, their m in #on#ern in the $ir!t pl #e bein dmi!!ionto !ome -ork. 3he petitioner&! - t#hmen mu!t h "e r ilro ded them!el"e!into their employment $or their !ub!i!ten#e, lthou h they $ound them!el"e!re)uired to -ork $or 12 hour! d y. 3rue, there - ! reement to -ork, but it# nnot $ irly be !uppo!ed th t they h d the $reedom to b r in in ny - y,mu#h le!! to in!i!t in the ob!er" n#e o$ the 8 hour l bor l -.

(l!o, there - ! no redu#tion - ! m de in the ! l rie! -hi#h it! - t#hmenre#ei"ed under the 12 hour rr n ement. (lthou h, it m y be r ued th t the! l ry $or the ni ht !hi$t - ! le!!ened, the $ #t th t the r te $or the d y !hi$t- ! in#re !ed in !en!e tend! to milit te in!t the #ontention th t the! l rie! i"en durin the 12 hour !hi$t! in#luded o"ertime #ompen! tion.

3he l - i"e! the (!!o#i tion the ri ht to e<tr #ompen! tion. (nd they#ould not be held to h "e impliedly - i"ed !u#h e<tr #ompen! tion, $or theob"iou! re !on th t #ould not h "e e<pre!!ly - i"ed it.

t i! hi h time th t ll employer! -ere - rned th t the publi# i! intere!ted inthe !tri#t en$or#ement o$ the ?i ht 7 Hour L bor L -. 3hi! - ! de!i ned notonly to ! $e u rd the he lth nd -el$ re o$ the l borer or employee, but in - y to minimi@e unemployment by $or#in employer!, in # !e! -here moreth n 8 7 hour oper tion i! ne#e!! ry, to utili@e di$$erent !hi$t! o$ l borer! or employee! -orkin only $or 8 hour e #h.

3he ppe led de#i!ion, in the $orm "oted by Jud e L ntin , i! $$irmed, itbein under!tood th t the petitioner&! - t#hmen -ill be entitled to e<tr#ompen! tion only $rom the d te! they re!pe#ti"ely entered the !er"i#e o$ the petitioner.



International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. !RCMarch ", #""$, Mendo%a, &.

ature: Petition for certiorari

F'CT(:• ntern tion l 'h rm #euti# l!, n#. ; ' : employed pri" te re!pondent

Air ini Buinti ! %edi# l ire#tor o$ it! C dept. repl #in one i nAill r @ .

•

0e# u!e th t ye r, the o"ernment l un#hed pro r m en#our inde"elopment o$ herb l medi#ine, ' de#ided to "enture into th t ndhired pri" te re!pondent ! ph rm #olo i!t only $or thi! purpo!e. Hen#e,the #ontention th t pri" te re!pondent - ! proDe#t employee.

• 3he #ontr #t o$ employment pro"ided $or term o$ one ye r !ubDe#t torene- l by mutu l #on!ent t le !t + d y! be$ore e<pir tion. t - ! l!o

reed th t Buinti # n #ontinue te #hin ! $ullEtime $ #ulty member t ebu o#tor&! Ho!pit l.

• Buinti #l imed th t -hen her #ontr #t - ! bout to e<pire, !he - !in"ited by F "ier *ni"er!ity to be #h irper!on o$ it! ph rm #olo y dept.0ut !tillo, pre!ent nd en m r o$ ' !ked her to !t y nd !!uredher o$ !e#urity o$ tenure. Hen#e, !he de#lined the o$$er o$ F "ier nd

rem ined n employ nd ! #omp ny phy!i#i n o$ ' $ter her #ontr #te<pired. 3hi! #ontinued until her termin tion on July 12, 1986.

• She lle e! th t her re !on $or her termin tion - ! be# u!e !he led ther nk nd $ile employee! in the dem nd $or $ull di!#lo!ure o$ the S "in !

nd Lo n (!!o#i tion&! $in n#i l !t tu!. Her p rti#ip tion - ! re!entedby !!o#i tion o$$i#er!.

• On July 1 , 1986, Buinti - ! repl #ed ! he d o$ the C dept by ' @=on . 3-o d y! l ter, !he re#ei"ed memor ndum o$$i#i lly termin tinher !er"i#e!.

• Buinti $iled #ompl int $or ille l di!mi!! l pr yin $or rein!t tementnd p yment o$ $ull b #k- e! nd mor l d m e!.

• L( $ound pri" te re!pondent to h "e been ille lly di!mi!!ed. He heldth t pri" te re!pondent - ! re ul r employee nd not proDe#temployee nd #ould not be di!mi!!ed -ithout Du!t # u!e!. NL

$$irmed rulin nd !ked L( to determine -hether rein!t tement i!po!!ible.

I(()*: =ON rein!t tement i! $e !ible

H*!+: 'etition S% SS? .R'TIO:

(rt. 28 . Regular and casual employment . E 3he pro"i!ion! o$ -rittenreement to the #ontr ry not-ith!t ndin nd re rdle!! o$ the or lreement o$ the p rtie!, n employment !h ll be deemed to be re ul r

-here the employee h ! been en ed to per$orm #ti"itie! -hi#h re

u!u lly ne#e!! ry or de!ir ble in the u!u l bu!ine!! or tr de o$ the employer e<#ept -here the employment h ! been $i<ed $or !pe#i$i# proDe#t or undert kin , the #ompletion or termin tion o$ -hi#h h ! been determined tthe time o$ the en ement o$ the employee or -here the -ork or !er"i#e tobe per$ormed i! !e !on l in n ture nd the employment i! $or the dur tion o$ the !e !on.

(n employment !h ll be deemed to be # !u l i$ it i! not #o"ered by the

pre#edin p r r phG 'ro"ided, 3h t ny employee -ho h ! rendered tle !t one ye r o$ !er"i#e, -hether !u#h !er"i#e i! #ontinuou! or broken, !h llbe #on!idered re ul r employee -ith re!pe#t to the #ti"ity in -hi#h he i!employed nd hi! employment !h ll #ontinue -hile !u#h #ti"ity e<i!t!.

nBrent School, Inc. v. Zamora , it - ! held th t lthou h -ork done under #ontr #t i! ne#e!! ry nd de!ir ble in rel tion to the u!u l bu!ine!! o$ theemployer, #ontr #t $or $i<ed period m y nonethele!! be m de !o lon !it i! entered into $reely, "olunt rily nd kno-in ly by the p rtie!.=hen #ompl in nt - ! llo-ed to #ontinue -orkin -ithout the bene$it o$ #ontr #t $ter the e<pir tion o$ the one ye r period pro"ided in their -ritten#ontr #t, th t #t #ompletely #h n ed the #omple<ion o$ the rel tion!hipbet-een the p rtie!.

Buinti &! !t tu! ! n employee i! not di!puted in thi! # !e. 3here$ore, indeterminin -hether !he - ! proDe#t employee or re ul r employee, the)ue!tion i! -hether her -ork - ! ne#e!! ry nd de!ir ble to the m inbu!ine!! o$ the employer.I t i! true th t, ! held in Singer , p rtie! # nenter into n reement $or the renderin o$ !er"i#e! by one to the other ndth t ho-e"er ne#e!! ry !u#h !er"i#e! m y be to the l tter&! bu!ine!! the#ontr #t -ill not ne#e!! rily i"e ri!e to n employerEemployee rel tion!hip i$ the element! o$ !u#h rel tion!hip re not pre!ent. 0ut th t i! not the)ue!tion in thi! # !e. Buinti - ! n employee. 3he )ue!tion i! -hether,

i"en the $ #t th t !he - ! n employee, !he - ! re ul r or proDe#temployee, #on!iderin th t !he h d been #ontinued in the !er"i#e o$ petitioner $or more th n t-o ye r! $ollo-in the e<pir tion o$ her -ritten#ontr #t.

'etitioner&! lle tion! re #ontr ry to the $ #tu l $indin ! o$ both the NLnd the L bor (rbiter, p rti#ul rly their $indin ! th t !he - ! the he d o$

petitioner&! e!e r#h nd e"elopment dep rtment th t in ddition, !heper$ormed the $un#tion o$ #omp ny phy!i#i n nd th t !he undertook " riou!#i"i# #ti"itie! in beh l$ o$ petitioner nd th t thi! en ement l !ted $or moreth n three ye r! ;198+ E 1986:. ert inly, ! the NL ob!er"ed, the!e $ #t!!ho- #ompl in nt -orkin not ! #on!ult nt& but ! re ul r employee

lbeit m n eri l one.I t !hould be dded th t Buinti - !hired to repl #e one i n Aill r @ , -hi#h !u e!t! th t the po!ition to-hi#h !he - ! ppointed by petitioner - ! n e<i!tin one, !o mu#h !o



th t $ter the termin tion o$ Buinti &! employment, !omebody el!e ;' @=on : - ! ppointed in her pl #e. $ pri" te re!pondent&! employment - !$or p rti#ul r proDe#t -hi#h h d lle edly been termin ted, -hy -ould therebe need to repl #e her>

3here i! no mention -h t!oe"er o$ ny proDe#t or o$ ny #on!ult n#y in the#ontr #t. (! ptly ob!er"ed by the Soli#itor ener l, the dutie! o$ Buinti !pro"ided $or in the #ontr #t reDe#t ny notion o$ #on!ult n#y. le rly, !he - !

hired ! %edi# l ire#tor o$ the e!e r#h nd e"elopment dep rtment o$ petitioner #omp ny nd not ! #on!ult nt nor $or ny p rti#ul r proDe#t. 3he-ork !he per$ormed - ! m ni$e!tly ne#e!! ry nd de!ir ble to the u!u lbu!ine!! o$ petitioner, #on!iderin th t it i! en ed in the m nu$ #ture ndprodu#tion o$ medi#in l prep r tion!.

=e ree -ith the L bor (rbiter th t the $ #t th t !he - ! not re)uired toreport t $i<ed hour or to keep $i<ed hour! o$ -ork doe! not detr #t $rom her !t tu! ! re ul r employee. (! petitioner it!el$ dmit!, Buinti - ! m n eri l employee nd there$ore not #o"ered by the L bor odepro"i!ion! on hour! o$ -ork. =h t thi! ourt ! id in on#e # !e i! apropos G

3he prim ry !t nd rd, ... o$ determinin re ul r employment i! there !on ble #onne#tion bet-een the p rti#ul r #ti"ity per$ormed bythe employee in rel tion to the u!u l bu!ine!! or tr de o$ theemployer. 3he te!t i! -hether the $ormer i! u!u lly ne#e!! ry or de!ir ble in the u!u l bu!ine!! or tr de o$ the employer. 3he#onne#tion # n be determined by #on!iderin the n ture o$ the -orkper$ormed nd it! rel tion to the !#heme o$ the p rti#ul r bu!ine!! or tr de in it! entirety. (l!o, i$ the employee h ! been per$ormin the

Dob $or t le !t one ye r, e"en i$ the per$orm n#e i! not #ontinuou! or merely intermittent, the l - deem! the repe ted nd #ontinuin need$or it! per$orm n#e ! !u$$i#ient e"iden#e o$ the ne#e!!ity i$ notindi!pen! bility o$ th t #ti"ity to the bu!ine!!. Hen#e, theemployment i! l!o #on!idered re ul r, but only -ith re!pe#t to !u#h

#ti"ity nd -hile !u#h #ti"ity e<i!t!

2. =ON $ter petitioner di!#ontinued it! herb l medi#ine proDe#t $ter it h dbeen !ho-n not to be "i ble, pri" te re!pondent&! employment h d to betermin ted, too

(! thi! ourt h ! held in Western Shipping Agency, Inc. v. NLRC

Lo!! o$ #on$iden#e i! " lid round $or the di!mi!! l o$ m n eri lemployee! . . . 0ut e"en m n eri l employee! enDoy !e#urity o$ tenure, . . . nd, . . . # n only be di!mi!!ed $ter # u!e i! !ho-n in

n ppropri te pro#eedin . 3he lo!! o$ #on$iden#e mu!t be

!ub!t nti ted by e"iden#e. 3he burden o$ proo$ i! on the employer to!ho- round! Du!ti$yin the lo!! o$ #on$iden#e.

+. =ON rein!t tement o$ pri" te re!pondent i! not $e !ible be# u!e thepo!ition -hi#h !he held - ! boli!hed on ##ount o$ it! de#i!ion todi!#ontinue it! herb l medi#ine de"elopment proDe#t nd th t, in nye"ent, be# u!e the po!ition i! !en!iti"e one -hi#h need! n employee in-hom the petitioner h ! $ull $ ith nd #on$iden#e.

(! re rd! the #l im th t the po!ition h ! lre dy been boli!hed nd,there$ore, rein!t tement i! impo!!ible, !u$$i#e it to !t te th t the $ #tu l$indin ! o$ the L bor (rbiter belie thi!. ( repl #ement $or pri" te re!pondent- ! ppointed t-o ;2: d y! prior to her termin tion. $ the po!ition h d been

boli!hed, there -ould h "e been no ne#e!!ity $or repl #ement.

0ut -e ree th t be# u!e o$ nt oni!m ener ted by thi! # !e nd thepri" te re!pondent&! o-n pre$eren#e $or !ep r tion p y, rein!t tement-ould no lon er be $e !ible.



(an Mi uel -re er, Inc. vs. +emocratic !a/or Or ani%ation, et al.0R o. !1#$232 4 &uly 2#. #"52 4 -autista, J.

F'CT(1. 3he emo#r ti# L bor (!!o#i tion $iled #ompl int in!t the S n

%i uel 0re-ery, n#., embodyin 12 dem nd! $or the betterment o$ the#ondition! o$ employment o$it! member!.

2. 3he #omp ny $iled it! n!-er to the #ompl int !pe#i$i# lly denyin it!

m teri l "erment! nd n!-erin the dem nd! point by point. 3he#omp ny !ked $or thedi!mi!! l o$ the #ompl int.+. urin the he rin , the union m ni$e!ted it! de!ire to #on$ine it! #l im to

it! dem nd!$or o"ertime, ni htE!hi$t di$$erenti l p y, nd ttorneyK! $ee!,lthou h it - ! llo-edto pre!ent e"iden#e on !er"i#e rendered durin

Sund y! nd holid y!, or on it!#l im $or ddition l !ep r tion p y nd!i#k nd " # tion le "e #ompen! tion.

4. ($ter the # !e h d been !ubmitted $or de#i!ion, 're!idin Jud e Jo!e S.0 uti!t ,-ho - !#ommi!!ioned to re#ei"e the e"iden#e, renderedde#i!ion e<pre!!in hi!di!po!ition -ith re rd to the point! embodied inthe #ompl int on -hi#h e"iden#e- ! pre!ented.

5. 3he dem nd! $or the ppli# tion o$ the %inimum = e L - to -orker!p id on p ki o b !i!, p yment o$ ##umul ted " # tion nd !i#k le "e

nd ttorneyK! $ee!, ! -ell ! the - rd o$ ddition l !ep r tion p y,-ere either di!mi!!ed, denied, or!et !ide.

6. t! motion $or re#on!ider tion h "in been denied by the indu!tri l #ourten b ne,-hi#h $$irmed the de#i!ion o$ the #ourt )uo -ith $e-e<#eption!, the S n %i uel0re-ery, n#. interpo!ed the pre!ent petition$or re"ie-.

I(()*=hether or not out!ide or $ield ! le! per!onnel re entitled to the bene$it! o$ the ?i htEHour L bor L -.

H*!+NO. ($ter the mornin roll # ll, the employee! le "e the pl nt o$ the #omp nyto o on their re!pe#ti"e ! le! route! nd they do not h "e d ily timere#ord but the ! le! route! re !o pl nned th t they # n be #ompleted -ithin8 hour! t mo!t, nd they re#ei"e monthly ! l rie! nd ! le! #ommi!!ion in" ri ble mount!, !o th t they re m de to -ork beyond the re)uired ei hthour! !imil r to pie#e-ork, p ki o , or #ommi!!ion b !i! re rdle!! o$ thetime employed, nd the employee!K p rti#ip tion depend! on their indu!try, iti! held th t the ?i htEHour L bor L - h ! no ppli# tion to ! id out!ide or $ield ! le! per!onnel nd th t they re not entitled to o"ertime p y.

3he ourt i! in the opinion th t the ?i htEHour L bor L - only h !ppli# tion -here n employee or l borer i! p id in monthly or d ily b !i!,

or i! p id monthly or d ily #ompen! tion, in -hi#h # !e, i$ he i! m de to

-ork beyond the re)ui!ite period o$ 8 hour!, he !hould be p id the ddition l#ompen! tion pre!#ribed by l -. 3hi! l - h ! no ppli# tion -hen theemployee or l borer i! p id on pie#eE-ork, p ki o , or #ommi!!ion b !i!,re rdle!! o$ the time employed. 3he philo!ophy behind thi! e<emption i!th t hi! e rnin ! re in the $orm o$ #ommi!!ion b !ed on the ro!! re#eipt!o$ the d y. Hi! p rti#ip tion depend! upon hi! indu!try !o th t the morehour! he employ! in the -ork the re ter re hi! ro!! return! nd the hi her hi! #ommi!!ion. 3hi! philo!ophy i! better e<pl ined in Je-el 3e o. "!.

=ill m!, . .(. Okl., 118 /. 2d 2 2, ! $ollo-!G 3he re !on! $or e<#ludin n out!ide! le!m n re $ irly pp rent. Su#h ! le!m n, to re t e<tent, -ork!indi"idu lly. 3here re no re!tri#tion! re!pe#tin the time he !h ll -ork ndhe # n e rn ! mu#h or ! little, -ithin the r n e o$ hi! bility, ! hi! mbitiondi#t te!. n lieu o$ o"ertime he ordin rily re#ei"e! #ommi!!ion! ! e<tr#ompen! tion. He -ork! - y $rom hi! employerK! pl #e o$ bu!ine!!, i! not!ubDe#t to the per!on l !uper"i!ion o$ hi! employer, nd hi! employer h ! no- y o$ kno-in the number o$ hour! he -ork! per d y



Far *ast ' ricultural (upply, Inc. vs &immy !e/ati6ue0R o. #57$#2 Fe/ #7, 7889

515 S ( 491 7 L bor L - 7 L bor St nd rd! 7 (b ndonment 7 Ser"i#en#enti"e Le "e 7 /ield 'er!onnel

F'CT(• n % r#h 1996, Leb ti)ue - ! hired ! dri"er by /( ?(S3

( *L3* (L S*''LM, N . -ith d ily - e o$ '22+.5 . Hi! Dob ! dri"er in#lude! the deli"ery o$ nim l $eed! to the #lient! o$ the#omp ny. He mu!t report either in the mornin or in the $ternoon tom ke the deli"erie!.

• On J nu ry 24, 2 , Leb ti)ue - ! !u!pended by % nuel *y ;brother o$ /?(S &! ener l % n er (le< nder *y: $or lle edly u!in the#omp ny "ehi#le ille lly.

• On the ! me d y, Leb ti)ue $iled #ompl int $or nonp yment o$ o"ertime p y in!t (le< nder *y.

• *y !ummoned Leb ti)ue nd !ked -hy he - ! #l imin o"ertime p y.Leb ti)ue ! id !in#e he !t rted -orkin -ith the #omp ny he h ! ne"er been p id O3 p y. *y #on!ulted -ith hi! brother. On J nu ry 29, 2 ,

*y told Leb ti)ue to look $or nother Dob.• Leb ti)ue then $iled n lle l i!mi!! l # !e in!t the #omp ny.

• 3he L bor (rbiter ruled in $ "or o$ Leb ti)ue. *y - ! ordered to rein!t teLeb ti)ue nd t the ! me time to p y Leb ti)ue hi! 1+th month p y,b #k - e! ;time -hen # !e - ! pendin :, !er"i#e in#enti"e le "e p y

nd O3 p y 7 ll mountin to '196,659. 2.• *y r ued th t Leb ti)ue - ! not di!mi!!ed nd th t he - ! merely

!u!pended th t he b ndoned hi! Dob nd th t Leb ti)ue - ! $ieldper!onnel not entitled to o"ertime p y nd !er"i#e in#enti"e le "e.

I(()*: =hether or not Leb ti)ue i! $ield per!onnel.

H*!+: No. Leb ti)ue i! re ul r employee.

• *y ille lly di!mi!!ed Leb ti)ue -hen he told him to look $or nother Dob.Jud in t the !e)uen#e o$ e"ent, Leb ti)ue e rned the ire o$ *y -henhe $iled #ompl int $or nonp yment o$ O3 p y on the d y Leb ti)ue - !!u!pended by % nuel *y. Su#h i! not " lid re !on $or di!mi!!inLeb ti)ue.

• *y # nnot there$ore #l im th t he merely !u!pended Leb ti)ue.• /urther, Leb ti)ue did not b ndon hi! Dob. Hi! $ilin o$ thi! # !e i! proo$

enou h th t he h d no intention to b ndon hi! Dob.•

3o #on!titute b ndonment ! Du!t # u!e $or di!mi!! l, there mu!t beG; : b!en#e -ithout Du!ti$i ble re !on nd

;b: #le r intention, ! m ni$e!ted by !ome o"ert #t, to !e"er theemployerEemployee rel tion!hip.

• None o$ the bo"e - ! pro"en by *y.• (l!o, Leb ti)ue i! not $ield per!onnel ! de$ined bo"e $or the $ollo-in

re !on!G;1: #omp ny dri"er!, in#ludin Leb ti)ue, re dire#ted to deli"er the

ood! t !pe#i$ied time nd pl #e;2: they re not i"en the di!#retion to !oli#it, !ele#t nd #ont #t

pro!pe#ti"e #lient! nd;+: / r ? !t i!!ued dire#ti"e th t #omp ny dri"er! !hould !t y t the#lient&! premi!e! durin tru#kEb n hour! -hi#h i! $rom 5G to 9G

.m. nd 5G to 9G p.m.• (! re ul r employee, Leb ti)ue i! entitled to !er"i#e in#enti"e le "e

nd O3 p y.• 3he Supreme ourt $$irmed the L bor (rbiter&! de#i!ion but rem nded

the # !e $or properly #omputin Leb ti)ue&! O3 p y t kin in to#on!ider tion the #omp ny&! time keepin re#ord!.

/ield 'er!onnel e$ined/ield per!onnel re tho!e -ho re ul rly per$orm their dutie! - y $rom the

prin#ip l pl #e o$ bu!ine!! o$ the employer nd -ho!e #tu l hour! o$ -orkin the $ield # nnot be determined -ith re !on ble #ert inty.



Mercidar Fishin Corporation vs. !RC Fermin ' ao, &r., . . No. 1125 4. O#tober 8, 1998 29 S ( 44

L bor St nd rd! 7 /i!hermen re not $ield per!onnel, (rti#le 82

F'CT(:3hi! # !e ori in ted $rom #ompl int $iled on September 2 , 199 by pri" tere!pondent /ermin( o, Jr. in!t petitioner $or ille l di!mi!! l, "iol tiono$ '. . No. 851, nd nonEp yment o$ $i"e d y! !er"i#e in#enti"e le "e $or 199 . 'ri" te re!pondent h d been employed ! bode ero or !hipK!)u rterm !ter on /ebru ry 12, 1988. He #ompl ined th t he h d been#on!tru#ti"ely di!mi!!ed by petitioner -hen the l tter re$u!ed him

!!i nment! bo rd it! bo t! $ter he h d reported to -ork on % y 28, 199 .'ri" te re!pondent lle ed th t he h d been !i#k nd thu! llo-ed to o onle "e -ithout p y $or one month $rom (pril 28, 199 but th t -hen hereported to -ork t the end o$ !u#h period -ith he lth #le r n#e, he - !told to #ome b #k nother time ! he #ould not be rein!t ted immedi tely.3here $ter, petitioner re$u!ed to i"e him -ork. /or thi! re !on, pri" tere!pondent !ked $or #erti$i# te o$ employment $rom petitioner onSeptember 6, 199 . Ho-e"er, -hen he # me b #k $or the #erti$i# te onSeptember 1 , petitioner re$u!ed to i!!ue the #erti$i# te unle!! he !ubmittedhi! re!i n tion. Sin#e pri" te re!pondent re$u!ed to !ubmit !u#h letter unle!!he - ! i"en !ep r tion p y, petitioner pre"ented him $rom enterin thepremi!e!. 'etitioner, on the other h nd, lle ed th t it - ! pri" tere!pondent -ho #tu lly b ndoned hi! -ork.

I(()*:=hether or not the $i!hin #re- member! re #on!idered $ield per!onnel !#l !!i$ied in (rt. 82 o$ the L bor ode.

H*!+: (rt. 82 o$ the L bor ode pro"ide!G 3he pro"i!ion! o$ thi! title =orkin

ondition! nd e!t 'eriod! !h ll pply to employee! in ll e!t bli!hment!nd undert kin ! -hether $or pro$it or not, but not to o"ernment employee!,

$ield per!onnel, member! o$ the $ mily o$ the employer -ho re dependenton him $or !upport, dome!ti# helper!, per!on! in the per!on l !er"i#e o$

nother, nd -orker! -ho re p id by re!ult! ! determined by the Se#ret ryo$ L bor in ppropri te re ul tion!.I /ield per!onnel !h ll re$er to nonE

ri#ultur l employee! -ho re ul rly per$orm their dutie! - y $rom theprin#ip l pl #e o$ bu!ine!! or br n#h o$$i#e o$ the employer nd -ho!e #tu lhour! o$ -ork in the $ield # nnot be determined -ith re !on ble #ert inty. n#ontr !t, in the # !e t b r, durin the entire #our!e o$ their $i!hin "oy e,$i!hermen employed by petitioner h "e no #hoi#e but to rem in on bo rd it!"e!!el. (lthou h they per$orm nonE ri#ultur l -ork - y $rom petitionerK!bu!ine!! o$$i#e!, the $ #t rem in! th t throu hout the dur tion o$ their -orkthey re under the e$$e#ti"e #ontrol nd !uper"i!ion o$ petitioner throu h the"e!!elK! p tron or m !ter.



!a/or Con ress of the Philippines vs. !RC. . No. 12+9+8 P % y 21, 1998 P J. "ide, Jr.

+octrine: (ppli# tion o$ L (rti#le 286;n: in determin tion o$ !t tu! o$ pie#e -orker! !re ul r -orker! "er!u! L (rti#le 86 de$inition

Facts:3he 99 per!on! ;(n % rie O# mpo, % ry nt l, et l: ! pri" te petitioner!in the pro#eedin ;repre!ented by the L bor on re!! o$ the 'hil!.: -erer nkE ndE$ile employee! o$ pri" te re!pondent ?mpire /ood 'rodu#t! ; $ood

nd $ruit pro#e!!in #omp ny:, hired on " riou! d te!.

O# mpo et l $iled in!t ?mpire n NL #ompl int $or p yment o$ money#l im! nd $or "iol tion o$ l bor !t nd rd! l -!. (lon !ide thi! they l!o $iled

petition $or dire#t #erti$i# tion $or the L bor on re!! to be their b r ininrepre!ent ti"e. On O#t. 2+, 199 , petitioner! repre!ented by L ', ndpri" te re!pondent! on@ lo nd ?"elyn Qehyen ;Qehyen !pou!e!:entered into %emor ndum o$ ( reement, re#o ni@in the $ollo-in G

• St tu! o$ L ' ! !ole nd e<#lu!i"e 0 r inin ( ent ndepre!ent ti"e $or ll r nk nd $ile employee! o$ the ?mpire /ood

'rodu#t! re rdin - e!, hour! o$ -ork, nd other term! nd#ondition! o$ employment

• =ith re rd to the NL #ompl int, ll p rtie! ree to re!ol"e thei!!ue! durin the olle#ti"e 0 r inin ( reement

• 'roper dDu!tment o$ - e!, -ithdr - l o$ # !e $rom the lend r o$ NL , nonEinter$eren#e or ny *L' #t, et#.

On O#t. 24, 199 , the %edi tor (rbiter ppro"ed the memor ndum nd#erti$ied L ' ! the !ole nd e<#lu!i"e b r inin ent $or the r nkE ndE$ileemployee! o$ ?mpire.

On No"ember 199 , L ' 're!ident N " rro !ubmitted to ?mpire propo! l$or #olle#ti"e b r inin . Ho-e"er, on J nu ry 1991, the pri" te petitioner!

(n % rie et l $iled #ompl int $orG• *n$ ir L bor 'r #ti#e! "i lle l Lo#kout nd i!mi!! l• *nionE0u!tin throu h h r !!ment, thre t! nd inter$eren#e to the

ri ht $or !el$Eor ni@ tion• Aiol tion o$ the O#t. 2+, 199 memor ndum• *nderp yment o$ - e!• (#tu l, mor l nd e<empl ry d m e!

!a/or 'r/iter ;Part #<:

• (b!ol"ed ?mpire $or *L', union bu!tin , "iol tion o$ the memor ndum o$ reement, underp yment o$ - e! nd denied petitioner!K pr yer $or

#tu l, mor l nd e<empl ry d m e!.• enied pr yer $or #tu l, mor l nd e<empl ry d m e!• ire#ted rein!t tement o$ #ompl in nt!, due to the $ #t th t ?mpire did

not keep it! p yroll re#ord! ! per re)uirement o$ the OL?. (dmonitionto ?mpire i"en ! -ell reG $urther h r !!ment nd intimid tion.

!RC ;Part #<:• em nded # !e to L bor (rbiter $or $urther pro#eedin ! due to

o"erlookin Rthe te!timonie! o$ !ome o$ the indi"idu l #ompl in nt!-hi#h re no- on re#ordI.

!a/or 'r/iter ;Part 7<:• ompl in nt! $ iled to pre!ent -ith de$initene!! nd #l rity the p rti#ul r

#t or #t! #on!tituti"e o$ un$ ir l bor pr #ti#e.• e#l r tion o$ *L' #onnote! $indin o$ prim $ #ie e"iden#e o$

prob bility th t #rimin l o$$en!e m y h "e been #ommitted !o ! to- rr nt the $ilin o$ #rimin l in$orm tion be$ore the re ul r #ourt.

• (! re rd! the i!!ue o$ h r !!ment, thre t! nd inter$eren#e -ith theri ht! o$ employee! to !el$Eor ni@ tion -hi#h i! #tu lly n in redient o$ un$ ir l bor pr #ti#e, #ompl in nt! $ iled to !pe#i$y -h t type o$ thre t!or intimid tion - ! #ommitted nd -ho #ommitted the ! me.

!RC ;Part 7<:• ($$irmed L( de#i!ion ' rt 2.

Petitioners:• 3he $ #t th t they re pie#e -orker! doe! not imply th t they re not

re ul r employee! entitled $or rein!t tement.• L( nd NL de#i!ion! -ere not !upported by !ub!t nti l e"iden#e• (b ndonment o$ -ork - ! not pro"ed by !ub!t nti l e"iden#e• %u#h #redit i"en to the Qehyen !pou!e!& !el$E!er"in r ument!.

Respondents:• (n % rie, et l -ere pie#e -orker! hen#e they re e<empt $rom l bor

!t nd rd! bene$it!

Issues:1. ?L?A(N3 =ON the petitioner! re entitled to l bor !t nd rd bene$it!,

#on!iderin their !t tu! ! pie#e r te -orker!.2. =ON the #tion! o$ (n % rie, et l #on!tituted b ndonment o$ -ork.

Held:1. M?S, petitioner! re entitled to l bor !t nd rd! bene$it!, n mely,

holid y p y, premium p y, 1+ th month p y nd !er"i#e in#enti"e

le "e.2. NO, $ ilure to ppe r to -ork did not #on!titute b ndonment,



Ratio:Supreme ourt de#i!ion #ite! th t (n % rie, et l, de!pite bein p ky oI or pie#e -orker! doe! not imply th t they re not re ul r employee! entitled torein!t tement. (pplyin the t-oE$old te!t $rom L (rti#le 286;n < ='rt. 7$8;old: , the S $ound th t the !uppo!edly pie#e -orker! h d three $ #tor! intheir $ "orG

: 3he n ture o$ the t !k! o$ (n % rie, et l o$ rep #kin !n #k $ooditem! - ! N? ?SS( M nd ?S (0L? in the u!u l bu!ine!! o$ ?mpire /ood!, -hi#h i! $ood nd $ruit pro#e!!in #omp ny.

(##ordin to !a"as vs Cali#ornia $anu#acturing , mer#h ndi!er! o$ pro#e!!ed $ood -ho #oordin te! $or ! le! o$ pro#e!!ed $ood - ! ne#e!!ity nd - ! de!ir ble $or the d yEtoEd y oper tion! o$ $oodpro#e!!in #omp ny. =ith more re !on -ould the Dob o$ $ood p #ker!be ne#e!! ry $or the d yEtoEd y oper tion! o$ $ood pro#e!!in pl nt .

b: (n % rie et l -orked throu hout the ye r, -ith their employmentbein independent $rom !pe#i$i# proDe#t or !e !on.

#: 3he len th o$ time th t petitioner! $ul$illed the re)uirement o$ (rti#le286;n:.

3here$ore, the S #on!idered the employee! ! re ul r employee! de!pitetheir !t tu! ! pie#e -orker!, ##ordin them bene$it! !u#h ! holid y p y,premium p y, 1+ th month p y nd !er"i#e in#enti"e le "e.

3he Rules Implementin the !a/or Code e<#lude #ert in employee! $romre#ei"in bene$it! !u#h ! ni httime p y, holid y p y, !er"i#e in#enti"e le "e

nd 1+th month p y, inter li , %#ield personnel and other employees &hosetime and per#ormance is unsupervised "y the employer, including those &hoare engaged on tas' or contract "asis, purely commission "asis, or those&ho are paid a #i(ed amount #or per#orming &or' irrespective o# the timeconsumed in the per#ormance thereo#.% Ho-e"er, petitioner! ! pie#eEr te-orker! do not $ ll -ithin thi! roup. Not only did the employee! l bor under the #ontrol o$ ?mpire, the employee! l!o -orked throu hout the ye r to $ul$iltheir )uot ! b !i! $or #ompen! tionI.

/urther, in (ection $ ;/<, Rule I>, -oo? III, pie#e -orker! re !pe#i$i# llymentioned ! bein entitled to holid y p y.

Sec. ). *oliday pay o# certain employees.+" Where a covered employee is paid "y results or output, such as

payment on piece &or', his holiday pay shall not "e less than hisaverage daily earnings #or the last seven +- actual &or'ing days

preceding the regular holiday rovided, ho&ever, that in no case shall the holiday pay "e less than the applica"le statutory minimum &age rate.

n ddition, the e"i!ed uideline! on the mplement tion o$ the 1+th %onth' y L -, in "ie- o$ the modi$i# tion! to P.+. o. $3# #" /y Memorandum

Order o. 7$, #le rly e<#lude the employer o$ pie#e r te -orker! $rom tho!ee<empted $rom p yin 1+th month p y, to -itG

2. ?F?%'3? ?%'LOM? S E 3he $ollo-in employer! re !till not#o"ered by '. . No. 851G

d. ?mployer! o$ tho!e -ho re p id on purely #ommi!!ion,bound ry or t !k b !i!, nd tho!e -ho re p id $i<ed mount $or per$ormin !pe#i$i# -ork, irre!pe#ti"e o$ the time #on!umed in theper$orm n#e thereo$, e<#ept -here the -orker! re p id on pie#eEr te b !i! in -hi#h # !e the employer !h ll r nt the re)uired 1+thmonth p y to !u#h -orker!.

Ho-e"er, the e"i!ed uideline! ! -ell ! the ule! nd e ul tion!identi$y tho!e -orker! -ho $ ll under the pie#eEr te # te ory ! tho!e -ho

re p id !t nd rd mount $or e"ery pie#e or unit o$ -ork produ#ed th t i!more or le!! re ul rly repli# ted, -ithout re rd to the time !pent inprodu#in the ! me.

3hey !hould l!o be p id $or o"ertime p y, e"en thou h Se#. 2;e:, ule ,0ook o$ the mplementin ule! !t te! th tG

R-orker! -ho re p id by re!ult! in#ludin tho!e -ho re p id onpie#eE-ork, t k y, p ki o, or t !k b !i!, i$ their output r te! re in

##ord n#e -ith the !t nd rd! pre!#ribed under Se#. 8, ule A ,0ook , o$ the!e re ul tion!, or -here !u#h r te! h "e been $i<edby the Se#ret ry o$ L bor in ##ord n#e -ith the $ore! id !e#tion,

re not entitled to re#ei"e o"ertime p y.I

n thi! # !e, ?mpire /ood! did not lle e th t they dheredtothe!t nd rd!!et$orthin Se#. 8, ule A , 0ook , nor-ithther te!pre!#ribedbytheSe#ret ryo$ L bor. 3here$ore, e"en thou h they re pie#e -orker!, they re entitled too"ertime p y

=ith re rd to the i!!ue o$ b ndonment o$ -ork, the S #ited the O$$i#e o$ Soli#itor ener l&! ob!er" tion!G

In #inding that petitioner employees a"andoned their &or', the La"or Ar"iter and the NLRC relied on the testimony o# Security /uard Rolando Cairo that on 0anuary 12, 2332, petitioners re#used to &or'.

As a result o# their #ailure to &or', the cheese curls ready #or repac'ing on said date &ere spoiled4

4 !he #ailure to &or' #or one day, &hich resulted in the spoilage o# cheese curls does not amount to a"andonment o# &or'. In #act t&o+1 days a#ter the reported a"andonment o# &or' or on 0anuary 15,2332, petitioners #iled a complaint #or, among others, un#air la"or

practice, illegal loc'out and6or illegal dismissal.



/urthermore, the S !tre!!ed th t the burden o$ pro"in the e<i!ten#e o$ Du!t# u!e $or di!mi!!in n employee, !u#h ! b ndonment, re!t! on theemployer. (##ordin to the S , ?mpire /ood! $ iled to di!#h r e thi! burden

! b !i! $or di!mi!!in the employee!.

(l!o, the S #on!idered th t, in termin tin the employee! $or b ndonmento$ -ork, ?mpire $ iled to !er"e to the employee! -ritten noti#e o$ termin tion ; ! re)uired by the 3-oENoti#e rule nd Se#tion 2, ule F A,0ook A o$ the Omnibu! ule!:, "iol tin the employee!& ri ht to !e#urity o$ tenure nd the #on!titution l ri ht to due pro#e!!.



) I>*R(IT@ OF P' 0'(I ' F'C)!T@ ) IO , Petitioner, v.) I>*R(IT@ OF P' 0'(I ' 'nd 'TIO '! !'-OR R*!'TIO (COMMI((IO , Respondents.

. . No. LE6+122,/ebru ry 2 , 1984

F'CT(:*ni"er!ity o$ ' n !in n / #ulty *nion throu h it! pre!ident $iled #ompl int -ith the NL pr yin , mon other!, th t their $ullEtimepro$e!!or! be i"en their ? OL( ;?mer en#y o!t nd Li"in (llo- n#e!:durin the !eme!tr l bre k. olle e le"el $ #ulty te #h $or norm l dur tiono$ 1 month! di"ided into t-o !eme!ter! o$ 5 month! e #h, e<#ludinNo"ember nd e#ember -hi#h re #on!idered the !eme!tr l bre k.=hile the te #her! re p id their monthly ! l ry on the!e d te!, the*ni"er!ity re$u!ed to p y their ? OL(, r tio#in tin thu! th t the te #her!

re not entitled thereto be# u!e the !eme!tr l bre k i! not n inte r l p rt o$ the !#hoolye r nd there bein no #tu l !er"i#e! rendered by the te #her!durin ! id period, the prin#iple o$ No -ork, no p yI pplie!.

SS*?G =ON $ #ulty member! o$ uni"er!ity re entitled to ? OL( durin!eme!tr l bre k!. M?S

H?L G1. 'er " riou! ' ! on ? OL(, ? OL( p y in#lude! LO( -ithout p y. 3hel - pro"ide! th t

?mployee! !h ll be p id in $ull the re)uired monthlyllo- n#e re rdle!! o$ the number o$ their re ul r -orkin

d y! i# they in#ur no a"sences durin the month. $ they in#ur b!en#e! &ithout p y, the mount! #orre!pondin to theb!en#e! m y be dedu#ted $rom the monthly llo- n#e < <

<I .I3he !eme!tr l bre k! # nnot be #on!idered ! b!en#e! -ithin the me nino$ the l - $or -hi#h dedu#tion! m y be m de $rom monthly llo- n#e. 3he

l - #ontempl te! no -orkI !itu tion -here the employee! "olunt rilyb!ent them!el"e!.

2.3he *ni"er!ity $urther #ontend! th t the $ #t o$ re#ei"in ! l ry !houldnot be the b !i! o$ re#ei"in ? OL(I. 3hi! i! -ithout merit !in#e the intentiono$ the l - i! to r nt ? OL( upon the p yment o$ b !i# - e!. Hen#e the

prin#iple, No p y, no ? OL(I.

o$ = e Order No. 1 e<pre!!ly pro"ide! th t ll #o"ered employee!-hether p id on monthly or d ily b !i! !h ll be entitled to their d ily li"in

llo- n#e -hen they re p id their b !i# - e.I

+. (l!o ppli# ble by n lo y i! the prin#iple enun#i ted in the Omnibu!ule! mplementin the L bor ode, Se#. 4.

'rin#iple! in eterminin Hour! =orkedR

d: 3he time durin -hi#h n employee i! in #ti"e by re !on o$ interruption! in hi! -ork beyond hi! #ontrol !h ll be #on!ideredtime either i# the imminence o# the resumption o# &or' re7uiresthe employee8s presence t the pl #e o$ -ork or i# the interval istoo "rie# to be utili@ed e$$e#ti"ely nd in$ully in the employee&!o-n intere!t.I

3he !eme!tr l bre k !#heduled i! n interruption beyond petitioner&!#ontrol nd it # nnot be u!ed e$$e#ti"ely nor in$ully in the employee&!intere!t&. 3hu!, the !eme!tr l bre k m y l!o be #on!idered ! hour!-orked.



Hilario Rada vs ational !a/or Relations Commission (u u!t 16, 2 112 5 S ( 69 7 L bor L - 7 L bor St nd rd! 7 Hour! o$ =ork 7 O3 ' y o$

'roDe#t 0 !ed ?mployee

n 19 , Hil rio d - ! #ontr #ted by 'hilnor on!ult nt! nd 'l nner!,n# ! dri"er. He - ! !!i ned to !pe#i$i# proDe#t in % nil . 3he #ontr #t

he !i ned - ! $or 2.+ ye r!. Hi! t !k - ! to dri"e employee! to the proDe#t$rom m to 4pm. He - ! llo-ed to brin home the #omp ny "ehi#le inorder to pro"ide timely tr n!port tion !er"i#e to the other proDe#t -orker!.3he proDe#t he - ! !!i ned to - ! not #ompleted ! !#heduled hen#e,!in#e he h ! ! ti!$ #tory re#ord, he - ! reE#ontr #ted $or n ddition l 1month!. ($ter 1 month! the proDe#t - ! not yet #ompleted. Se"er l#ontr #t! there $ter -ere m de until the proDe#t - ! $ini!hed in 1985.

(t the #ompletion o$ the proDe#t, d - ! termin ted ! hi! employment- ! #oEterminou! -ith the proDe#t. He l ter !ued 'hilnor $or non p yment o$ !ep r tion p y nd o"ertime p y. He ! id he i! entitled to be p id O3 p ybe# u!e he u!e! e<tr time to et to the proDe#t !ite $rom hi! home nd $romthe proDe#t !ite to hi! home e"eryd y 7 in tot l, he !pend! n "er e o$ +hour! O3 e"ery d y.

SS*?G =hether or not d i! entitled to !ep r tion p y nd O3 p y.H?L G Sep r tion p y 7 NO. O"ertime p y 7 Me!.

Sep r tion ' y

3he S ruled th t d - ! proDe#t employee -ho!e -ork - !#oterminou! -ith the proDe#t $or -hi#h he - ! hired. 'roDe#t employee!, !di!tin ui!hed $rom re ul r or nonEproDe#t employee!, re mentioned inSe#tion 281 o$ the L bor ode ! tho!e -here the employment h ! been$i<ed $or !pe#i$i# proDe#t or undert kin the #ompletion or termin tion o$ -hi#h h ! been determined t the time o$ the en ement o$ the employee.

'roDe#t employee! re not entitled to termin tion p y i$ they re termin ted! re!ult o$ the #ompletion o$ the proDe#t or ny ph !e thereo$ in -hi#h theyre employed, re rdle!! o$ the number o$ proDe#t! in -hi#h they h "e been

employed by p rti#ul r #on!tru#tion #omp ny. %oreo"er, the #omp ny i!not re)uired to obt in #le r n#e $rom the Se#ret ry o$ L bor in #onne#tion-ith !u#h termin tion.&

O3 ' y

d i! entitled to O3 p y. Hour! -orked !h ll in#lude ll time durin -hi#hn employee i! !u$$ered or permitted to -ork

3he $ #t th t he pi#k! up employee! o$ 'hilnor t #ert in !pe#i$ied point!lon ? S( in oin to the proDe#t !ite nd drop! them o$$ t the ! me point!

on hi! - y b #k $rom the $ ield o$$i#e oin home to % rikin , %etro % nil i!not merely in#ident l to d &! Dob ! dri"er. On the #ontr ry, ! idtr n!port tion rr n ement h d been dopted, not !o mu#h $or the#on"enien#e o$ the employee!, but prim rily $or the bene$it o$ 'hilnor. (!embodied in 'hilnor&! memor ndum, they llo-ed their dri"er! to brin hometheir tr n!port "ehi#le! in order $or them to pro"ide timely tr n!port !er"i#e

nd to "oid del y 7 not re lly !o th t the dri"er! #ould enDoy the bene$it! o$ the #omp ny "ehi#le! nor $or them to ! "e on $ re. 'hilnor $ound out th tproDe#t del y! nd ine$$i#ien#ie! re!ulted $rom employee!K t rdine!! nd th tthe problem o$ t rdine!!, in turn, - ! r " ted by tr n!port tion problem!,-hi#h " ried in de ree! in proportion to the di!t n#e bet-een the proDe#t !ite

nd the employee!K re!iden#e.



(H*!! OI! AORB*R( ) IO vs. (H*!! COMP' @ OF TH*PHI!IPPI *(, !T+., and TH* CO)RT OF I +)(TRI'! R*!'TIO (

0.R. o. !17$589, May 2#, #"9#.

F'CT(:

e!pondent Shell omp ny o$ the 'hilippine! ; O%'(NM: di!!ol"ed it!!e#urity u rd !e#tion !t tioned t it! ' nd # n n!t ll tion, not-ith!t ndinth t !u#h i! !!ured by n e<i!tin #olle#ti"e b r inin #ontr #t.

3he re!pondent #omp ny tr n!$erred 18 !e#urity u rd! to it! other dep rtment nd #on!e)uently hired pri" te !e#urity en#y to undert kethe -ork o$ ! id !e#urity u rd!. 3hi! re!ulted in !trike # lled by petitioner Shell Oil =orker!& *nion ;*N ON:, 3he 're!ident #erti$ied it to re!pondent

ourt o$ ndu!tri l el tion! ; :. de#l red the !trike ille l on theround th t !u#h di!!olution - ! " lid e<er#i!e o$ m n ement

prero ti"e.

3hu! thi! ppe l i! t ken. 'etitioner r ued th t the 18 !e#urity u rd!$$e#ted re p rt o$ the b r inin unit nd #o"ered by the e<i!tin #olle#ti"e

b r inin #ontr #t, ! !u#h, their tr n!$er! nd e"entu l di!mi!! l! reille l bein done in "iol tion o$ the e<i!tin #ontr #t. 3he omp nym int ined th t in #ontr #tin out the !e#urity !er"i#e nd redeployin the 18!e#urity u rd! $$e#ted, it - ! merely per$ormin it! le itim te prero ti"eto dopt the mo!t e$$i#ient nd e#onomi# l method o$ oper tion, th t ! id

#tion - ! moti" ted by bu!ine!! #on!ider tion in line -ith p !t e!t bli!hedpr #ti#e nd m de $ter noti#e to nd di!#u!!ion -ith the *nion, th t the 18

u rd! #on#erned -ere di!mi!!ed $or -il$ully re$u!in to obey the tr n!$er order, nd th t the !trike !t ed by the *nion i! ille l.

I(()*:

=hether the e<i!tin #olle#ti"e b r inin #ontr #t on m int inin !e#urityu rd !e#tion, mon other!, #on!titute b r to the de#i!ion o$ the

m n ement to #ontr #t out !e#urity u rd!.

R)!I 0:

M?S. 3he !trike - ! le l be# u!e there - ! "iol tion o$ the #olle#ti"eb r inin reement by omp ny. t - ! p rt o$ the 0( th t the Se#urity

u rd Se#tion -ill rem in. Met, the omp ny did not #omply -ith the!tipul tion in 0(. t - ! thu! n !!ur n#e o$ !e#urity o$ tenure, t le !t,durin the li$etime o$ the reement. /or -h t i! in"ol"ed i! the inte rity o$ the reement re #hed, the term! o$ -hi#h !hould be bindin on both p rtie!

3he !t nd o$ Shell omp ny ! to the !#ope o$ m n ement prero ti"e i!not de"oid o$ pl u!ibility, m n ement prero ti"e o$ the omp ny -ouldh "e been " lid i$ it -ere not bound by -h t - ! !tipul ted in 0(. 3he$reedom to m n e the bu!ine!! rem in! -ith m n ement. t # nnot bedenied the $ #ulty o$ promotin e$$i#ien#y nd tt inin e#onomy by !tudyo$ -h t unit! re e!!enti l $or it! oper tion. 3o it belon ! the ultim tedetermin tion o$ -hether !er"i#e! !hould be per$ormed by it! per!onnel or #ontr #ted to out!ide en#ie!. Ho-e"er, -hile m n ement h ! the $in l! y on !u#h m tter, the l bor union i! not to be #ompletely le$t out.

(n un$ ir l bor pr #ti#e i! #ommitted by l bor union or it! ent by it!re$u! l to b r in #olle#ti"ely -ith the employer&. olle#ti"e b r inin doe!not end -ith the e<e#ution o$ n reement, bein #ontinuou! pro#e!!, theduty to b r in ne#e!! rily impo!in on the p rtie! the obli tion to li"e up tothe term! o$ !u#h #olle#ti"e b r inin reement i$ entered into, it i!undeni ble th t nonE#ompli n#e there-ith #on!titute! n un$ ir l bor pr #ti#e.

3he ri ht to !el$Eor ni@ tion u rded by the ndu!tri l 'e #e (#t e<pli#itlyin#lude! the ri ht to en e in #on#erted #ti"itie! $or the purpo!e o$ #olle#ti"e b r inin nd to the mutu l id or prote#tion.I 3he employee,ten nt or l borer i! inhibited $rom !trikin or - lkin out o$ hi! employment



only -hen !o enDoined by the nd $ter di!pute h ! been !ubmittedthereto nd pendin - rd or de#i!ion by the #ourt o$ !u#h di!pute.

n the pre!ent # !e, the employee! or l borer! m y !trike be$ore beinordered not to do !o nd be$ore n indu!tri l di!pute i! !ubmitted to the ,!ubDe#t to the po-er o$ the l tter, $ter he rin -hen publi# intere!t !ore)uire! or -hen the di!pute # nnot, in it! opinion, be promptly de#ided or !ettled, to order them to return to -ork, -ith the #on!e)uen#e th t i$ the!triker! $ il to return to -ork, -hen !o ordered, the #ourt m y uthori@e theemployer to ##ept other employee! or l borer!.I 3hu! !trike m y not be!t ed only -hen, durin the penden#y o$ n indu!tri l di!pute, the h !i!!ued the proper inDun#tion in!t the l borer! ;!e#tion 19, ommon-e lth

(#t No. 1 +, ! mended:.

=H? ?/O ?, the de#i!ion o$ re!pondent ourt o$ ndu!tri l el tion! o$ (u u!t 5, 196 i! re"er!ed.

TTTTE

UUNO3?G

0?L ?/ N OO /( 3H 3H(3 ?%'LOM? O%% 33? *N/( L(0O' ( 3 ? ?N ? S S3 Q? L? (LG

t i! not e"en re)uired th t there be in $ #t n un$ ir l bor pr #ti#e #ommittedby the employer. t !u$$i#e!, i$ !u#h belie$ in ood $ ith i! entert ined byl bor, ! the indu#in $ #tor $or !t in !trike. So it - ! de#l redG (! #on!e)uen#e, -e hold th t the !trike in )ue!tion h d been # lled to o$$!et

-h t petitioner! -ere - nted in belie"in in ood $ ith to be un$ ir l bor pr #ti#e! on the p rt o$ % n ement, th t petitioner! -ere not bound,there$ore, to - it $or the e<pir tion o$ thirty ;+ : d y! $rom noti#e o$ !trikebe$ore !t in the ! me, th t ! id !trike - ! not, ##ordin ly, ille l nd th tthe !triker! h d not thereby lo!t their !t tu! ! employee! o$ re!pondent!herein.I



=0.R. o. !1D$D29. (eptem/er 28, #"$5.EM' TR'+* FMMC +I>I(IO *MP!O@**( ' + AORB*R( ) IO;represented /y PHI!IPPI * (OCI'! (*C)RIT@ !'-OR ) IO GP((!) Fed. G T)CP<, v. 'R-ITR'TOR FROI!' M. -'C) 0' andM' TR'+* +*>*!OPM* T CORPOR'TIO .

/ #t!G1. 'etitoner % ntr de *nion $ile! petition $or #ertior ri nd m nd mu!

in!t the re!pondent Aolunt ry (rbitr tor 0 n#un n nd % ntr dee"elopment.

2. 3he "olunt ry rbitr tor ruled th t % ntr de e"elopment orpor tion i!not under le l obli tion to p y holid y p y t lthou h monthly ! l riedemployee! re not mon tho!e e<#luded $rom re#ei"in !u#h ddition lp y under (rti#le 94 o$ the L bor ode o$ the 'hilippine!, they ppe r tobe e<#luded under Se#. 2, ule A, 0ook o$ the ule! nd e ul tion!implementin ! id pro"i!ion -hi#h re d! thu!G

S? . 2. Status o# employees paid "y the month.9?mployee! -ho re uni$ormly p id by the month,irre!pe#ti"e o$ the number o$ -orkin d y! therein, -ith

! l ry o$ not le!! th n the !t tutory or e!t bli!hed minimum- e !h ll be pre!umed to be p id $or ll d y! in the month-hether -orked or not.

+. 3he pro"i!ion i! null nd "oid !in#e in the ui!e o$ #l ri$yin theL bor ode&! pro"i!ion! on holid y p y, they in e$$e#t mended themby enl r in the !#ope o$ their e<#lu!ion. 3he #o"er e nd !#ope o$ e<#lu!ion o$ the L bor ode&! holid y p y pro"i!ion! i! !pelled outunder (rti#le 82.

+. t i! #le r th t monthly p id employee! re not e<#luded $rom the

bene$it! o$ holid y p y. t #on!titute! t kin - y or depri" tion-hi#h mu!t be in the l - i$ it i! to be " lid. (n dmini!tr ti"einterpret tion -hi#h dimini!he! the bene$it! o$ l bor more th n -h tthe !t tute delimit! or -ithhold! i! ob"iou!ly ultr "ire!.



&O(* RI '! CO!!*0* vs !RCo. !53D$7. +ecem/er #, #"$9.

156 S ( 2 7 L bor L - 7 L bor St nd rd! 7 =orkin ondition! nde!t 'eriod! 7 Holid y ' y

/( 3SGJo!e i@ l olle e h ! three roup! o$ employee! # te ori@ed ! $ollo-!G ; :per!onnel on monthly b !i!, -ho re#ei"e their monthly ! l ry uni$ormlythrou hout the ye r, irre!pe#ti"e o$ the #tu l number o$ -orkin d y! in month -ithout dedu#tion $or holid y! ;b: per!onnel on d ily b !i! -ho rep id on #tu l d y! -orked nd they re#ei"e un-orked holid y p y nd ;#:#olle i te $ #ulty -ho re p id on the b !i! o$ !tudent #ontr #t hour.

3he N tion l (lli n#e o$ 3e #her! !ued Jo!e i@ l olle e $or lle ed nonEp yment o$ un-orked holid y! $rom 19 5 to 19 . 3he member! o$ the

(lli n#e #on#erned re $ #ulty member! -ho re p id on the b !i! o$ !tudent#ontr #t hour.

i@ l olle e "er! th t it i! not #o"ered by 0ook A o$ the L bor ode onL bor el tion! #on!iderin th t it i! nonpro$it in!titution nd th t it! hourlyp id $ #ulty member! re p id on #ontr #t b !i! be# u!e they rere)uired to hold #l !!e! $or p rti#ul r number o$ hour!. n the pro r mmino$ the!e !tudent #ontr #t hour!, le l holid y! re e<#luded nd l belled inthe !#hedule ! no #l !! d y. 3he !#hool # lend r i! l!o e<tended to#ompen! te $or holid y.

SS*?G =hether or not the !#hool $ #ulty -ho ##ordin to their #ontr #t!re p id per le#ture hour re entitled to un-orked holid y p y.

H?L G1. mplementin ule! nd e ul tion!, ule A, 0ook i! not Du!ti$ied bythe pro"i!ion! o$ the l -.

S? . 8. *oliday pay o# certain employees.9+a 'ri" te !#hoolte #her!, in#ludin $ #ulty member! o$ #olle e! nd uni"er!itie!, m ynot be p id $or the re ul r holid y! durin !eme!tr l " # tion!. 3hey!h ll, ho-e"er, be p id $or the re ul r holid y! durin hri!tm !" # tion!. < < <

(! $ r ! un-orked re ul r holid y! re #on#erned, the te #her! re notentitled to holid y p y. e ul r holid y! !pe#i$ied ! !u#h by l - re kno-nto both !#hool nd $ #ulty member! ! no #l !! d y!I. ert inly the l tter donot e<pe#t p yment $or ! id un-orked d y!, nd thi! - ! #le rly in their mind! -hen they entered into the te #hin #ontr #t!.

2. 3he te #her! re entitled to be p id $or un-orked !pe#i l holid y!.Ho-e"er, both the l - nd the mplementin ule! o"ernin holid y p y

re !ilent ! to p yment on Spe#i l 'ubli# Holid y!. t i! re dily pp rent th tthe de#l red purpo!e o$ the holid y p y -hi#h i! the pre"ention o$ diminutiono$ the monthly in#ome o$ the employee! on ##ount o$ -ork interruption!m y !eem to be !et o$$ by n e<ten!ion o$ the !#hool # lend r. Ho-e"er, the$ #ulty member, lthou h $or#ed to t ke re!t, doe! not e rn -h t he !houlde rn on th t d y. 0e it noted th t -hen !pe#i l publi# holid y i! de#l red,the $ #ulty member p id by the hour i! depri"ed o$ e<pe#ted in#ome, nd itdoe! not m tter th t the !#hool # lend r i! e<tended in "ie- o$ the d y! or hour! lo!t, $or their in#ome th t #ould be e rned $rom other !our#e! i! lo!tdurin the e<tended d y!. Simil rly, -hen #l !!e! re # lled o$$ or !hortenedon ##ount o$ typhoon!, $lood!, r llie!, nd the like, the!e $ #ulty member!mu!t like-i!e be p id, -hether or not e<ten!ion! re ordered.



(' MI0)*! CORPOR'TIO v. TH* HO OR'-!* CO)RT OF'PP*'!(1FORM*R THIRT** TH +I>I(IO , HO . ) +*R(*CR*T'R@&O(* M. *(P' O!, &R., Hon. CR*(* CI' O -. TR'&' O, and HO .R*0IO '! +IR*CTOR '!!' M. M'C'R'@', respondents.

. . No. 146 5. J nu ry + , 2 2

/ #t!G

3he ep rtment o$ L bor nd ?mployment #ondu#ted routine in!pe#tion inS n %i uel orpor tion, li n ity nd it - ! di!#o"ered th t there - !underp yment by S% o$ re ul r %u!lim holid y p y to it! employee!.

OL? !ent #opy o$ in!pe#tion re!ult to S% -hi#h the l tter #onte!ted the$indin !. S% $ iled to !ubmit proo$ nd hen#e the ire#tor o$ OL? o$ li n

i!tri#t O$$i#e i!!ued #ompli n#e order to p y both it! %u!lim nd nonE%u!lim employee! the %u!lim Holid y!. S% ppe led to OL? m in o$$i#ebut di!mi!!ed $or h "in been $iled l te but l ter on re#on!idered be# u!e iti! -ithin re lement ry period but !till di!mi!!ed $or l #k o$ merit. Hen#e, thi!pre!ent petition $or #ertior ri.

!!ueG =hether or not nonE%u!lim employee! -orkin in %u!lim re ! i!entitled to %u!lim Holid y ' y.

HeldG3he Supreme ourt di!mi!!ed the petition nd ordered the petitioner to p yit! nonE%u!lim employee!. 3he b !i! $or thi! de#i!ion -ere (rti#le! 169 nd1 o$ '. . No. 1 8+ ode o$ %u!lim 'er!on l L -!I -hi#h li!ted ll o$$i#i l%u!lim holid y! nd pro"in#ie! nd #itie! -here o$$i#i lly ob!er"ed. n thi!# !e, S% i! lo# ted in li n -hi#h i! #o"ered in the tho!e pro"i!ion!. (l!o

(rti#le 169 nd 1 o$ ' No. 1 8+ !hould be re d in #onDun#tion -ith (rti#le94 o$ L bor ode -hi#h pro"ide! $or the ri ht o$ e"ery -orker to be p id o$ holid y p y.

'etitioner !!ert! (rt.+;+: o$ ' No. 1 8+ pro"ide! th t it !h ll be ppli# bleonly to %u!lim!. Ho-e"er, the ourt ! id th t ! id rti#le de#l re! th tnothin herein !h ll be #on!trued to oper te to the preDudi#e o$ nonE%u!lim. 3here !hould be no di!tin#tion bet-een %u!lim! nd nonE%u!lim!

! re rd! p yment o$ bene$it! $or %u!lim holid y!.

t - ! ! id l!o th t the 3he ourt o$ (ppe l! did not err in !u!t inin*nder!e#ret ry ?!p Vol -ho !t tedG (!!umin r uendo th t there!pondent&! po!ition i! #orre#t, then by the ! me token, %u!lim! throu houtthe 'hilippine! re l!o not entitled to holid y p y! on hri!ti n holid y!de#l red by l - ! re ul r holid y!. =e mu!t remind the re!pondentE

ppell nt th t - e! nd other emolument! r nted by l - to the -orkinm n re determined on the b !i! o$ the #riteri l id do-n by l -! nd#ert inly not on the b !i! o$ the -orker&! $ ith or reli ion.I



P CC (B@A'@ TR'FFIC M' '0*M* T ' + (*C)RIT@ +I>I(IOAORB*R( OR0' I 'TIO ;P(TM(+AO<, represented /y itsPresident, R* * (ORI' O vs. P CC (B@A'@ CORPOR'TIO0.R. o. #9#72# ;/ebru ry 1 , 2 1 :

/( 3SG'etitioner 'N Sky- y orpor tion 3r $$i# % n ement nd Se#urity

i"i!ion =orker!K Or ni@ tion ;'S3%S =O: i! l bor union dulyre i!tered -ith the ep rtment o$ L bor nd ?mployment ; OL?:.

e!pondent 'N Sky- y orpor tion i! #orpor tion duly or ni@ed ndoper tin under nd by "irtue o$ the l -! o$ the 'hilippine!. 3hey enteredinto 0(. 'ertinent pro"i!ion! re ! $ollo-!G

( 3 L? AA( (3 ON L?(A? (N S Q L?(A?

Se#tion 1. A # tion Le "e.

b !he company shall schedule the vacation leave o# employees during the year ta'ing into considerationthe re7uest o# pre#erence o# the employees.

'N then #re ted !#hedule o$ le "e! $or their employee!. 'etitioner obDe#ted to the implement tion o$ the ! id memor ndum. t in!i!ted th t theindi"idu l member! o$ the union h "e the ri ht to !#hedule their " # tionle "e. t opined th t the unil ter l !#hedulin o$ the employee!K " # tionle "e - ! done to "oid the moneti@ tion o$ their " # tion le "e in

e#ember 2 4.

=ON the 'N h ! the !ole di!#retion to !#hedule the " # tion le "e! o$ it!employee!.

M?S. 'etitioner in!i!ted th t their union member! h "e the pre$eren#e in!#hedulin their " # tion le "e. On the other h nd, re!pondent r ued th t

(rti#le A , Se#tion 1 ;b: i"e! the m n ement the $in l ! y re rdin the" # tion le "e !#hedule o$ it! employee!. e!pondent m y t ke into#on!ider tion the employee!K pre$erred !#hedule, but the ! me i! not#ontrollin .

3he rule i! th t -here the l n u e o$ #ontr #t i! pl in nd un mbi uou!,it! me nin !hould be determined -ithout re$eren#e to e<trin!i# $ #t! or id!.3he intention o$ the p rtie! mu!t be thered $rom th t l n u e, nd $romth t l n u e lone. St ted di$$erently, -here the l n u e o$ -ritten#ontr #t i! #le r nd un mbi uou!, the #ontr #t mu!t be t ken to me n th t

-hi#h, on it! $ #e, it purport! to me n, unle!! !ome ood re !on # n be!!i ned to !ho- th t the -ord! u!ed !hould be under!tood in di$$erent

!en!e.

n the # !e t b r, the #onte!ted pro"i!ion o$ the 0( i! #le r ndune)ui"o# l. (rti#le A , Se#tion 1 ;b: o$ the 0( # te ori# lly pro"ide! th tthe !#hedulin o$ " # tion le "e shall be under the option o$ the employer.

3hu!, i$ the term! o$ 0( re #le r nd le "e no doubt upon the intentiono$ the #ontr #tin p rtie!, the liter l me nin o$ it! !tipul tion !h ll pre" il. n$ine, the 0( mu!t be !tri#tly dhered to nd re!pe#ted i$ it! end! h "e to be

#hie"ed, bein the l - bet-een the p rtie!. In :aculty Association o# $apua Institute o# !echnology +:A$I! v. Court o# Appeals, thi! ourt heldth t the 0( durin it! li$etime bind! ll the p rtie!. 3he pro"i!ion! o$ the

0( mu!t be re!pe#ted !in#e it! term! nd #ondition! #on!titute the l -bet-een the p rtie!. 3he p rtie! # nnot be llo-ed to #h n e the term! they

reed upon on the round th t the ! me re not $ "or ble to them.

3 he purpo!e o$ " # tion le "e i! to $$ord l borer #h n#e to et mu#hEneeded re!t to repleni!h hi! -ornEout ener y nd #)uire ne- "it lityto en ble him to e$$i#iently per$orm hi! dutie!, nd not merely to i"e him

ddition l ! l ry nd bounty. (##ordin ly, the " # tion le "e pri"ile e - !not intended to !er"e ! ddition l ! l ry, but ! nonEmonet ry bene$it. 3o

i"e the employee! the option not to #on!ume it -ith the im o$ #on"ertin itto # !h t the end o$ the ye r -ould de$e t the "ery purpo!e o$ " # tionle "e.

ndeed, the multitude or !# r#ity o$ per!onnel m nnin the toll- y! !houldnot re!t upon the option o$ the employee!, ! the publi# u!in the !ky- y!y!tem !hould be !!ured o$ it! ! $ety, !e#urity nd #on"enien#e. 'etitionerK!#ontention th t l bor #ontr #t! !hould be #on!trued in $ "or o$ the l borer i!-ithout b !i! nd, there$ore, in ppli# ble to the pre!ent # !e. 3hi! rule o$ #on!tru#tion doe! not bene$it petitioner! be# u!e, ! !t ted, there i! here noroom $or interpret tion. Sin#e the 0( i! #le r nd un mbi uou!, it! term!!hould be implemented ! they re -ritten.



PHI!IPPI * HOT*!I*R(, I C., +)(IT HOT*! IBBO1M' I!' v'TIO '! ) IO OF AORB*R( I HOT*!, R*(T')R' T, ' +

'!!I*+ I +)(TRI*( ; )AHR'I 1'P!1I)F<1 +)(IT HOT*! IBBOCH'PT*R

. . No. 1819 2 P (u u!t 25, 2 9 P H OEN(W( O, 0 .G

F'CT(:• =O No. 9, ppro"ed by the e ion l 3rip rtite = e! nd 'rodu#ti"ity

0o rd ; 3='0: o$ N took e$$e#t on 5 No"ember 2 1. t r nt!'+ . ? OL( to p rti#ul r employee! nd -orker! o$ ll pri" te!e#tor!G

Se#tion 1. *pon the e$$e#ti"ity o$ thi! = e Order, ll pri" te!e#tor -orker! nd employee! in the N tion l pit l e ionre#ei"in d ily - e r te! o$ 3=O H*N ? / /3M '?SOS;'25 . : up to 3=O H*N ? N N?3M '?SOS ;'29 . : !h llre#ei"e n emer en#y #o!t o$ li"in llo- n#e in the mount o$ 3H 3M '?SOS ;'+ . : per d y p y ble in t-o tr n#he! !$ollo-!G

(mount o$ ? OL( ?$$e#ti"ity'15. 5 No"ember 2 1'15. 1 /ebru ry 2 2

• N*=H ( NE('LE */E u!it Hotel Nikko h pter ;*nion:, throu h're!ident, eyn ldo . !in , !ent letter to OL?EN ire#tor (le<% r n, reportin the nonE#ompli n#e o$ u!it Hotel -ith =O No. 9,-hile there - ! n onE oin #ompul!ory rbitr tion be$ore the NL dueto b r inin de dlo#k bet-een the *nion nd u!it Hotel.

• (#tin on !in &! letter!, the OL?EN !ent L bor St nd rd! O$$i#er ?!trellit N ti"id d to #ondu#t in!pe#tion o$ u!it Hotel premi!e!, re!ult!

! !t tedGo 0 !ed on inter"ie-! $$id "it! o$ employee!, they re re#ei"in

more th n '29 . "er e d ily r te -hi#h i! e<empted in the#ompli n#e o$ = e Order N E 9

o

em rk!G 3here i! n on oin ne oti tion under !e X N %0EN ENSE12E+69E 1 C N %0EN ENSE 1E 19E 2 no-$or- rded to the NL o$$i#e $or the #ompul!ory rbitr tion.

o NO3?G ' yroll! to $ollo- l ter upon re)ue!t in#ludin po!itionp per o$ u!it Hotel .

• 0y "irtue o$ !in ! re)ue!t $or nother in!pe#tion, LSO N ti"id d#ondu#ted !e#ond in!pe#tion o$ u!it Hotel premi!e! , re!ult! re !!t tedG

o UNonEpre!ent tion o$ re#ord! p yroll!o U0 !ed on !ubmitted p yroll! C li!t o$ union member! by

N*=H ( NE *S 3 HO3?L N QQO h pter, there re onehundred $ortyE$our ;144: $$e#ted in the implement tion o$ = e

Order No. N E 9EY ? OL( #o"erin the period! $rom No".5 1to pre!ent.

• OL?EN i!!ued Noti#e o$ n!pe#tion e!ult dire#tin u!it Hotel toe$$e#t re!titution nd or #orre#tion o$ the noted "iol tion! nd to !ubmit

ny )ue!tion on the $indin ! o$ the l bor in!pe#tor -ithin the ! meperiod, other-i!e, n order o$ #ompli n#e -ould be i!!ued. 3he Noti#e o$

n!pe#tion e!ult - ! duly re#ei"ed.• n the me ntime, the NL rendered e#i!ion in the #ompul!ory

rbitr tion in"ol"in the 0( de dlo#k bet-een u!it Hotel nd the*nion r ntin the hotel employee! the $ollo-in - e in#re !e!, in

##ord -ith the 0(G?$$e#ti"e J nu ry 1, 2 1E '5 . month?$$e#ti"e J nu ry 1, 2 2E '55 . month?$$e#ti"e J nu ry 1, 2 +E ' 6 . month

• 0 !ed on the re!ult! o$ the !e#ond in!pe#tion o$ u!it Hotel, OL?ENdire#ted u!it Hotel to p y 144 o$ it! employee! the tot l mount o$ '1,218,24 . , #orre!pondin to their unp id ? OL( under =O No. 9plu!, the pen lty o$ double indemnity, pur!u nt to Se#tion 12 o$ ( 6 2 ,

! mended by ( 8188, -hi#h pro"ide!GSe#. 12. (ny per!on, #orpor tion, tru!t, $irm, p rtner!hip,

!!o#i tion or entity -hi#h re$u!e! or $ il! to p y ny o$ thepre!#ribed in#re !e! or dDu!tment! in - e r te! m de in

##ord n#e -ith thi! (#t !h ll be puni!hed by $ine not le!! th n3-entyE$i"e thou! nd pe!o! ;'25, : nor more th n One hundredthou! nd pe!o! ;'1 , : or impri!onment o$ not le!! th n t-o ;2:ye r! nor more th n $our ;4: ye r! or both !u#h $ind ndimpri!onment t the di!#retion o$ the #ourtG 'ro"ided, 3h t nyper!on #on"i#ted under thi! (#t !h ll not be entitled to the bene$it!pro"ided $or under the 'rob tion L -.

3he employer #on#erned !h ll be ordered to p y n mounte)ui" lent to double the unp id bene$it! o-in to the employee!G'ro"ided, 3h t p yment o$ indemnity !h ll not b!ol"e the employer $rom the #rimin l li bility under thi! (#t.

$ the "iol tion i! #ommitted by #orpor tion, tru!t or $irm,p rtner!hip, !!o#i tion or ny other entity, the pen lty o$ impri!onment !h ll be impo!ed upon the entity! re!pon!ible o$$i#er!in#ludin but not limited to the pre!ident, "i#e pre!ident, #hie$ e<e#uti"e o$$i#er, ener l m n er, m n in dire#tor or p rtner.

• u!it Hotel $iled n % r uin th t the NL e#i!ion re!ol"in theb r inin de dlo#k bet-een u!it nd the *nion, nd - rdin ! l ryin#re !e! under the 0( to hotel employee! retro #ti"e to 1 J nu ry2 1, rendered the OL?EN Order moot nd # demi#. =ith ! l ryin#re !e o$ the hotel employee! nd their !h re in the !er"i#e #h r e!,the 144 hotel employee!, -ould lre dy be re#ei"in ! l rie! beyond the#o"er e o$ =O No. 9. OL?EN !et !ide it! e rlier order $or beinmoot nd # demi#, in #on!ider tion o$ the NL nd di!mi!!in the

#ompl int o$ the *nion in!t u!it Hotel, $or nonE#ompli n#e -ith =ONo. 9, $or l #k o$ merit.



• 3he *nion ppe led be$ore the OL? Se#ret ry m int inin th t the- e in#re !e! r nted by the NL e#i!ion !hould not be deemed !#ompli n#e by -ith =O No. 9. 3he OL?, throu h (#tin Se#ret ry% nuel . m!on, r nted the ppe l. 3he OL? Se#ret ry re !onedth t the NL e#i!ion # te ori# lly de#l red th t the - e in#re !eunder the 0( $in li@ed bet-een u!it Hotel nd the *nion !h ll not be#redited ! #ompli n#e -ith =O! No. 8 nd No. 9. /urthermore, Se#tion1 o$ ule A o$ the ule! mplementin =O No. 9, -hi#h pro"ide! th t- e in#re !e! r nted by n employer in n or ni@ed e!t bli!hment-ithin three month! prior to the e$$e#ti"ity o$ ! id = e Order !h ll be#redited ! #ompli n#e -ith the ? OL( pre!#ribed therein, pplie! only-hen n reement to thi! e$$e#t h ! been $or ed bet-een the p rtie! or

pro"i!ion in the 0( llo-in !u#h #reditin e<i!t!.• u!it Hotel !ou ht re#on!ider tion, the OL? Se#ret ry r nted the

u!it Hotel&! % . 3he ! id - e in#re !e, plu! !h re in the !er"i#e#h r e!, lre dy #on!tituted #ompli n#e -ith the =O No. 9

• *nion $iled n % but - ! denied by the OL? Se#ret ry 3he OL?Se#ret ry $ound th t it -ould be unDu!t on the p rt o$ u!it Hotel i$ thehotel employee! -ere to enDoy ! l ry in#re !e! retro #ti"e to 1 J nu ry2 1, pur!u nt to the NL e#i!ion d ted 9 O#tober 2 2, nd yet

! id ! l ry in#re !e! -ould be di!re rded in determinin #ompli n#e bythe hotel -ith =O No. 9.• 3he *nion ppe led "i 'etition $or e"ie-, ( ruled in $ "or o$ the

*nion. e$errin to Se#tion 1+ o$ =O No. 9, the ( de#l red th t - ein#re !e! llo- n#e! r nted by the employer !h ll not be #redited !#ompli n#e -ith the pre!#ribed in#re !e in the ! me = e Order, unle!!pro"ided in the l - or the 0( it!el$ nd there - ! no !u#h pro"i!ion.

( l!o $ound th t u!it Hotel $ iled to !ub!t nti te it! po!ition th tre#eipt by it! employee! o$ !h re! in the !er"i#e #h r e! - ! to bedeemed !ub!t nti l #ompli n#e by ! id hotel -ith the p yment o$ ? OL( re)uired by =O No. 9. ( dDud ed th t u!it Hotel !hould beli ble $or double indemnity $or it! $ ilure to #omply -ith =O No. 9. (

!tre!!ed th t ? OL( i! mon the l borer! $in n#i l r ti$i# tion! under the l -, nd i! di!tin#t nd !ep r te $rom bene$it! deri"ed $romne oti tion or reement -ith their employer. ( di!po!edG % o$ u!itHotel - ! denied $or l #k o$ merit.

• u!it Hotel !ou ht re#our!e $rom thi! ourt by $ilin the in!t nt 'etition

I(()*: =ON the 144 hotel employee! -ere !till entitled to ? OL( r ntedby =O No. 9 de!pite the in#re !e! in their ! l rie!, retro #ti"e to 1 J nu ry2 1. NO3 (LL.

H*!+:• Se#tion 1 o$ =O No. 9 "ery pl inly !t ted th t only pri" te !e#tor -orker!

nd employee! in the N re#ei"in d ily - e r te! o$ '25 . to'29 . !h ll be entitled to ? OL(. 'ri" te !e#tor -orker! nd

employee! re#ei"in d ily - e! o$ more th n '29 . -ere no lon er entitled to ? OL(. 3he ? OL( - ! to be implemented in t-o tr n#he!G'15. d y be innin 5 No"ember 2 1 nd the $ull mount o$ '+ . d y be innin 1 /ebru ry 2 2.

• =O No. 9 took e$$e#t on 5 No"ember 2 1. 3he e#i!ion rendered bythe NL on 9 O#tober 2 2 ordered u!it Hotel to r nt it! employee!! l ry in#re !e! retro #ti"e to 1 J nu ry 2 1 nd 1 J nu ry 2 2. ndeterminin -hi#h o$ it! employee! -ere entitled to ? OL(, u!it Hotelu!ed ! b !e! the d ily ! l rie! o$ it! employee!, in#lu!i"e o$ theretro #ti"e ! l ry in#re !e!. 3he *nion prote!ted nd in!i!ted th t theb !e! $or the determin tion o$ entitlement to ? OL( !hould be the hotelemployee! d ily ! l rie!, e<#lu!i"e o$ the retro #ti"e ! l ry in#re !e!.

(##ordin to the *nion, u!it Hotel # nnot #redit the ! l ry in#re !e! !#ompli n#e -ith =O No. 9.

• %u#h o$ the #on$u!ion in thi! # !e ri!e! $rom the in!i!ten#e o$ the *nionto pply Se#tion 1+ o$ =O No. 9, -hi#h !t te!G

Se#tion 1+. = e in#re !e! llo- n#e! r nted by n employer inn or ni@ed e!t bli!hment -ith three ;+: month! prior to the

e$$e#ti"ity o$ thi! Order !h ll be #redited ! #ompli n#e -ith thepre!#ribed in#re !e !et $orth herein, provided the correspondin/ar ainin a reement provision allo in credita/ility eJists. nthe b!en#e o$ !u#h n reement or pro"i!ion in the 0(, nyin#re !e r nted by the employer !h ll not be #redited !#ompli n#e -ith the in#re !e pre!#ribed in thi! Order.

n unor ni@ed e!t bli!hment!, - e in#re !e! llo- n#e! r ntedby the employer -ithin three ;+: month! prior to the e$$e#ti"ity o$ thi!Order !h ll be #redited ! #ompli n#e there-ith.

n # !e the in#re !e! i"en re le!! th n the pre!#ribed dDu!tment,the employer !h ll p y the di$$eren#e. Su#h in#re !e! !h ll notin#lude nni"er! ry in#re !e!, merit - e in#re !e! nd tho!ere!ultin $rom the re ul ri@ tion or promotion o$ employee!.

• 3he *nion h rp! on the $ #t th t it! 0( -ith u!it Hotel doe! not#ont in ny pro"i!ion on #redit bility, thu!, u!it Hotel # nnot #redit the! l ry in#re !e! ! #ompli n#e -ith the ? OL( re)uired to be p idunder =O No. 9.

• 3he reli n#e o$ the *nion on Se#tion 1+ i! mi!pl #ed. u!it Hotel i! not#ontendin #redit bility o$ the hotel employee! ! l ry in#re !e! !#ompli n#e -ith the ? OL( m nd ted by =O No. 9. redit bility me n!th t u!it Hotel -ould h "e been llo-ed to p y it! employee! the ! l ryin#re !e! in pl #e o$ the ? OL( re)uired by =O No. 9. 3hi!, ho-e"er, i!not -h t u!it Hotel i! $ter. 3he po!ition o$ u!it Hotel i! th t the ! l ry

in#re !e! !hould be t ken into ##ount in determinin entitlement to? OL(. 3he retro #ti"e in#re !e! #ould r i!e the d ily ! l ry r te!



bo"e '29 . , pl #in ! id employee! beyond the #o"er e o$ =O No.9. Se#tion 1+ o$ =O No. 9 on #redit bility i! irrele" nt nd in ppli# bleherein.

• 3he ourt ree! -ith u!it Hotel th t the in#re !ed ! l rie! o$ theemployee! !hould be u!ed ! b !e! $or determinin -hether they -ereentitled to ? OL( under =O No. 9. 3he "ery $ #t th t the NL de#reedth t the ! l ry in#re !e! o$ the u!it Hotel employee! !h ll beretro #ti"e to 1 J nu ry 2 1 nd 1 J nu ry 2 2, me n! th t ! idemployee! -ere lre dy !uppo!ed to re#ei"e the ! id ! l ry in#re !e!be innin on the!e d te!. 3he in#re !ed ! l rie! -ere the ri ht$ul! l rie! o$ the hotel employee! by 1 J nu ry 2 1, then in by 1J nu ry 2 2. (lthou h bel tedly p id, the hotel employee! !till re#ei"edtheir ! l ry in#re !e!.

• t i! only $ ir nd Du!t, there$ore, th t in determinin entitlement o$ thehotel employee! to ? OL(, their in#re !ed ! l rie! by 1 J nu ry 2 1

nd 1 J nu ry 2 2 !h ll be m de the b !e!. 3here i! no lo i# inre#o ni@in the ! l ry in#re !e! $or one purpo!e ;i.e., to re#o"er theunp id mount! thereo$: but not $or the other ;i.e., to determineentitlement to ? OL(:. /or the ourt to rule other-i!e -ould be to! n#tion unDu!t enri#hment on the p rt o$ the hotel employee!, -ho-ould be re#ei"in in#re !e! in their ! l rie!, -hi#h -ould pl #e thembeyond the #o"er e o$ Se#tion 1 o$ =O No. 9, yet !till be p id ? OL(under the "ery ! me pro"i!ion.

• NL dire#ted u!it Hotel to in#re !e the ! l rie! o$ it! employee! by'5 . per month, retro #ti"e to 1 J nu ry 2 1. ($ter pplyin the ! id! l ry in#re !e, only 82 hotel employee! -ould h "e h d d ily ! l ryr te! $ llin -ithin the r n e o$ '25 . to '29 . . 3hu!, upon thee$$e#ti"ity o$ =O No. 9 on 5 No"ember 2 1, only the ! id 82 employee!-ere entitled to re#ei"e the $ir!t tr n#h o$ ? OL(, e)ui" lent to '15.per d y.

• NL e#i!ion l!o ordered u!it Hotel to e$$e#t !e#ond round o$ in#re !e in it! employee! ! l rie!, e)ui" lent to '55 . per month,

retro #ti"e to 1 J nu ry 2 2. (! re!ult o$ thi! in#re !e, the d ily ! l ryr te! o$ ll hotel employee! -ere lre dy bo"e '29 . . on!e)uently,by 1 J nu ry 2 2, no more hotel employee - ! )u li$ied to re#ei"e? OL(.

• i"en th t 82 hotel employee! -ere entitled to re#ei"e the $ir!t tr n#h o$ ? OL( $rom 5 No"ember 2 1 to +1 e#ember 2 1, the ourt mu!t

ddre!! the !!ertion o$ u!it Hotel th t the re#eipt by ! id hotelemployee! o$ their !h re! in the !er"i#e #h r e! lre dy #on!tituted!ub!t nti l #ompli n#e -ith the pre!#ribed p yment o$ ? OL( under =O No. 9. The Court rules in the ne ative. t mu!t be notedth t the hotel employee! h "e ri ht to their !h re in the !er"i#e#h r e! #olle#ted by u!it Hotel, pur!u nt to (rti#le 96 o$ the L bor

ode o$ 1991, to -itG

(rti#le 96. Service charges. (ll !er"i#e #h r e!#olle#ted by hotel!, re!t ur nt! nd !imil r e!t bli!hment!!h ll be di!tributed t the r te o$ ei htyE$i"e per#ent ;85Z:$or ll #o"ered employee! nd $i$teen per#ent ;15Z: $or m n ement. 3he !h re o$ employee! !h ll be e)u llydi!tributed mon them. n # !e the !er"i#e #h r e i!

boli!hed, the !h re o$ the #o"ered employee! !h ll be#on!idered inte r ted in their - e!.

• Sin#e u!it Hotel i! e<pli#itly m nd ted by the $oreE)uoted !t tutorypro"i!ion to p y it! employee! nd m n ement their re!pe#ti"e !h re!in the !er"i#e #h r e! #olle#ted, the hotel # nnot #l im th t p ymentthereo$ to it! 82 employee! #on!titute !ub!t nti l #ompli n#e -ith thep yment o$ ? OL( under =O No. 9. *ndoubtedly, the hotel employee!ri ht to their !h re! in the !er"i#e #h r e! #olle#ted by u!it Hotel i!di!tin#t nd !ep r te $rom their ri ht to ? OL( r ti$i# tion by the hotelo$ one doe! not re!ult in the ! ti!$ #tion o$ the other.

• 3he ourt, $ind! no b !i! to hold u!it Hotel li ble $or doubleindemnity. Noti#e o$ n!pe#tion e!ult !h ll !pe#i$y the "iol tion!di!#o"ered, i$ ny, to ether -ith the o$$i#er! re#ommend tion nd#omput tion o$ the unp id bene$it! due e #h -orker -ith n d"i#e th tthe employer !h ll be li ble $or double indemnity in # !e o$ re$u! l or $ ilure to #orre#t the "iol tion -ithin $i"e # lend r d y! $rom re#eipt o$ noti#e. ( # re$ul re"ie- o$ the Noti#e o$ n!pe#tion e!ult d ted 29 % y2 2, i!!ued herein by the OL?EN to u!it Hotel, re"e l! th t the! id Noti#e did not #ont in !u#h n d"i#e.



M*TROPO!IT' -' B and TR)(T COMP' @ vs. 'TIO '! !'-ORR*!'TIO ( COMMI((IO , F*!IP* '. P'T'0 and -I* >* I+O C.F!OR', 0.R. o. #37"7$, &une #$, 788"

!*O 'R+O1+* C'(TRO, J .:

F'CT(:

e!pondent! /elipe ' t ;' t : nd 0ien"enido /lor ;/lor : -ere$ormer employee! o$ petitioner %etropolit n 0 nk nd 3ru!t omp ny;%etrob nk:. 0oth re!pondent! " iled o$ the b nk&! #ompul!ory retirementpl n in ##ord n#e -ith the 1995 O$$i#er!& 0ene$it! %emor ndum. (t thetime o$ hi! retirement on /ebru ry 1, 1998, ' t - ! n (!!i!t nt% n er. /lor - ! Senior % n er -hen he retired on (pril 1, 1998.0oth o$ them re#ei"ed their re!pe#ti"e retirement bene$it! #omputed t 185Z

o$ their ro!! monthly ! l ry $or e"ery ye r o$ !er"i#e ! pro"ided under the! id 1995 %emor ndum.

? rly in 1998, olle#ti"e 0 r inin ( reement ; 0(: ne oti tion!-ere onE oin bet-een %etrob nk nd it! r nk nd $ile employee! $or theperiod 1998E2 . ' t -rote letter d ted /ebru ry 2, 1998 to the b nkre)ue!tin th t hi! retirement bene$it! be #omputed t the ne- r te !houldthere be n in#re !e thereo$ in nti#ip tion o$ po!!ible #h n e! in o$$i#er!&

bene$it! $ter the !i nin o$ the ne- 0( -ith the r nk nd $ile. /lorlike-i!e -rote %etrob nk in % r#h 25, 1998, re)ue!tin the b nk to u!e !b !i! in the #omput tion o$ their retirement bene$it! the in#re !ed r te o$ 2 Z ! embodied in the Du!t #on#luded 0( bet-een the b nk nd it! r nk

nd $ile employee!. %etrob nk did not reply to their re)ue!t!.

3he re#ord! !ho- th t !in#e the 1986E1988 0(, nd #ontinuin -ithe #h 0( #on#luded there $ter -ith it! r nk nd $ile employee!, %etrob nk-ould i!!ue %emor ndum r ntin !imil r or better bene$it! to it!m n eri l employee! or o$$i#er!, retro #ti"e to J nu ry 1 !t o$ the $ir!t ye r o$

e$$e#ti"ity o$ the 0(. =hen the 1998E2 0( - ! ppro"ed, %etrob nk,in line -ith it! p !t pr #ti#e, i!!ued on June 1 , 1998, %emor ndum onO$$i#er!& 0ene$it!, -hi#h pro"ided $or impro"ed bene$it! to it! o$$i#er! ;the1998 O$$i#er!& 0ene$it! %emor ndum:. 3hi! %emor ndum - ! !i ned bythen %etrob nk 're!ident (ntonio S. (b # n, Jr. 'ertinently, the #ompul!oryretirement bene$it $or o$$i#er! - ! in#re !ed $rom 185Z to 2 Z e$$e#ti"eJ nu ry 1, 1998, but -ith the #ondition th t the bene$it! !h ll only bee<tended to tho!e -ho rem in in !er"i#e ! o$ June 15, 1998.

on!e)uently on (u u!t +1, 1998, ' t nd /lor , throu h their #oun!el, -rote letter to %etrob nk dem ndin the p yment o$ their unp idretirement bene$it!, repre!entin the in#re !ed bene$it! they !hould h "ere#ei"ed under the 1998 O$$i#er!& 0ene$it! %emor ndum.

On September 25, 1998, ' t nd /lor $iled -ith the L bor (rbiter their #on!olid ted #ompl int in!t %etrob nk $or underp yment o$ retirement bene$it! nd d m e!, !!ertin th t pur!u nt to the 1998O$$i#er!& 0ene$it! %emor ndum, they -ere entitled to ddition l retirementbene$it!. ' t , $or hi! p rt, l!o #l imed he - ! entitled to p yment o$ hi!199 pro$it !h re nd 1998 !tru#tur l dDu!tment.

3he L bor (rbiter rendered de#i!ion, di!mi!!in the #ompl int o$ ' t nd /lor . ' t nd /lor $iled n ppe l -ith the NL . 3he 3hirdi"i!ion o$ the NL p rti lly r nted the ppe l nd dire#ted %etrob nk to

p y ' t nd /lor their unp id bene$i#i l impro"ement! under the 1998O$$i#er!& 0ene$it! %emor ndum. ( rie"ed -ith the rulin o$ the NL ,%etrob nk ele" ted the m tter to the ( by - y o$ petition $or #ertior ri.3he ( promul ted it! !! iled de#i!ion di!mi!!in %etrob nk&! petition

nd $$irmin the re!olution o$ the NL . 'etitioner&! !ub!e)uent motion $or re#on!ider tion - ! denied by the (.



Hen#e, the in!t nt petition $or re"ie- on #ertior ri under ule 45 o$ the 199ule! o$ i"il 'ro#edure.

I(()*:

=hether re!pondent! # n !till re#o"er hi her bene$it! under the 1998O$$i#er!& 0ene$it! %emor ndum de!pite the $ #t th t they h "e #ompul!orilyretired prior to the i!!u n#e o$ ! id memor ndum nd did not meet the#ondition therein re)uirin them to be employed ! o$ June 15, 1998.

H*!+: Me!. 3o be #on!idered #omp ny pr #ti#e, the i"in o$ the bene$it!!hould h "e been done o"er lon period o$ time, nd mu!t be !ho-n toh "e been #on!i!tent nd deliber te. 3he te!t or r tion le o$ thi! rule onlon pr #ti#e re)uire! n indubit ble !ho-in th t the employer reed to

#ontinue i"in the bene$it! kno-in $ully -ell th t ! id employee! re not#o"ered by the l - re)uirin p yment thereo$.

n other -ord!, $or o"er de# de, %etrob nk h ! consistently, deli/eratelyand voluntarily r nted impro"ed bene$it! to it! o$$i#er!, $ter the !i nin o$ e #h 0( -ith it! r nk nd $ile employee!, retro #ti"e to J nu ry 1 !t o$ the! me ye r ! the r nt o$ impro"ed bene$it! nd -ithout the #ondition th t

the o$$i#er! !hould rem in employee! ! o$ #ert in d te. 3hi! undeni blyindi# te! unil ter l nd "olunt ry #t on %etrob nk&! p rt, to i"e ! idbene$it! to it! o$$i#er!, kno-in th t !u#h #t - ! not re)uired by l - or the#omp ny retirement pl n.

=ith re rd to the len th o$ time the #omp ny pr #ti#e !hould h "e beene<er#i!ed to #on!titute "olunt ry employer pr #ti#e -hi#h # nnot beunil ter lly -ithdr -n by the employer, Duri!pruden#e h ! not l id do-n nyh rd nd $ !t rule. n the # !e o$ ;avao :ruits Corporation v. Associated La"or <nions, the #omp ny pr #ti#e o$ in#ludin in the #omput tion o$ the1+thEmonth p y the m ternity le "e p y nd # !h e)ui" lent o$ unu!ed" # tion nd !i#k le "e l !ted $or !i< ;6: ye r!. n nother # !e, !iangco v.Leogardo, 0r ., the employer # rried on the pr #ti#e o$ i"in $i<ed monthlyemer en#y llo- n#e $rom No"ember 19 6 to /ebru ry 198 , or three ;+:ye r! nd $our ;4: month!. =hile in Sevilla !rading v. Semana , the employer kept the pr #ti#e o$ in#ludin nonEb !i# bene$it! !u#h ! p id le "e! $or

unu!ed !i#k le "e nd " # tion le "e in the #omput tion o$ their 1+thEmonthp y $or t le !t t-o ;2: ye r!. n ll the!e # !e!, thi! ourt held th t the

r nt o$ the!e bene$it! h ! ripened into #omp ny pr #ti#e or poli#y -hi#h# nnot be peremptorily -ithdr -n. 3he #ommon denomin tor in the!e # !e!

ppe r! to be the re ul rity nd deliber tene!! o$ the r nt o$ bene$it! o"er !i ni$i# nt period o$ time.

labor case digest compilation 06 (oct 26) mnl terminal - mbtc

Documents