labor must read

7/25/2019 Labor Must Read

1/31

Labor Law

MUST READ CASES (LABOR LAW)

LABOR STANDARDS

Estrellita G. Salazar vs Philippine Duplicators, Inc, G.R. No. 154628 December 6, 2006

The constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress

employers. The commitment under the fundamental law is that the cause of labor does not

prevent us from sustaining the employer when the law is clearly on its side.

People of the Philippines vs. Teresita Tessie Laogo. G.R. No. 176264 January 10, 2011

Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken by

non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. When the

illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it

is deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a

form of economic sabotage. But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused,

without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had thepower or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with

their money in order to be employed. It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer

of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY INC. v. CABILES, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014

In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.,this court ruled that

the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less"is

unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.

A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. It "confers no rights; itimposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not

been passed at all."

When a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity

cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision. A law

or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such unless

circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.

Sycip, Gorres, Velayo Company vs. Carol De Raedt. G.R. No. 161366; June 16, 2009

To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law has consistently

applied the four-fold test, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) thepayment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employers power to control the

employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The so-called "control

test" is the most important indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee

relationship.

Manila Water Company, Inc. vs. Jose J. Dalumpines. G.R. No. 175501; October 4, 2010


2/31

Labor Law

It should be remembered that the control test merely calls for the existence of the right to

control, and not necessarily the exercise thereof. It is not essential that the employer actually

supervises the performance of duties of the employee. It is enough that the former has a right to

wield the power.

Macarthur Malicdem and Hermenigildo Flores vs. Marulas Industrial Corporation. G.R. No.

204406; February 26, 2014

The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection

between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or

trade of the employer.

KASAMMA-CCO v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 159828; April 19, 2006

A casual employee is only casual for one year, and it is the passage of time that gives him a regular

status.

Jose Y. Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004

Television-radio talent is not an employee. Relationship of a big name talent and a television-

radio broadcasting company is one of an independent contracting arrangement. ABS-CBN

engaged Sonzas services specifically to co-host the "Mel & Jay" programs. ABS-CBN did not

assign any other work to Sonza. To perform his work, Sonza only needed his skills and talent. How

Sonza delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBNs

control. Sonza did not have to render eight hours of work per day. The Agreement required Sonza

to attend only rehearsals and tapings of the shows, as well as pre- and post-production staff

meetings. ABS-CBN could not dictate the contents of Sonzas script.

Gapayao v Fulo, et al., G.R. No. 193493 (2013)

Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. The Court has consistently

held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal

employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship with the

employer is such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during

the summer season or when their services may be needed. They are in regular employment

because of the nature of their job, and not because of the length of time they have worked.

This rule, however, is not absolute. Seasonal workers who have worked for one season only may

not be considered regular employees. Also when seasonal employees are free to contract their

services with other farm owners, then the former are not regular employees. For regular

employees to be considered as such, the primary standard used is the reasonable connectionbetween the particular activity they perform and the usual trade or business of the employer.

FVR Skills and Services Exponents, Inc. (SKILLEX), et al. v. Jovert Seva, et al., G.R. No. 200857,

October 22, 2014

For an employee to be validly categorized as a project employee, it is necessary that the specific

project or undertaking had been identified and its period and completion date determined and


3/31

Labor Law

made known to the employee at the time of his engagement. This provision ensures that the

employee is completely apprised of the terms of his hiring and the corresponding rights and

obligations arising from his undertaking. Notably, the petitioner's service contract with Robinsons

was from January 1 to December 31, 2008. The respondents were only asked to sign their

employment contracts for their deployment with Robinsons halfway through 2008, when the

petitioner's service contract was about to expire.

Under Article 1390 of the Civil Code, contracts where the consent of a party was vitiated by

mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud, are voidable or annullable. The

petitioner's threat of nonpayment of the respondents' salaries clearly amounted to intimidation.

Under this situation, and the suspect timing when these contracts were executed, we rule that

these employment contracts were voidable and were effectively questioned when the

respondents filed their illegal dismissal complaint. Respondents are thus regular employees.

Pasos v Philippine National Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 192394 (2013)

Project employee is deemed regularized if services are extended without specifying duration.

While for first three months, petitioner can be considered a project employee of PNCC, hisemployment thereafter, when his services were extended without any specification of as to the

duration, made him a regular employee of PNCC. And his status as a regular employee was not

affected by the fact that he was assigned to several other projects and there were intervals in

between said projects since he enjoys security of tenure.

Alcatel Phils. vs Relos, G.R. No. 164315. July 3, 2009

However, a project or work pool employee who has been continuously rehired by the same

employer for the same tasks that are necessary to the usual business of the employer must be

deemed a regular employee.

Fuji Television Network, Inc. v Arlene S. Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, 03 December 2014

An employee can be a regular employee with a fixed-term contract. The law does not preclude

the possibility that a regular employee may opt to have a fixed-term contract for valid reasons.

This was recognized in Brent: For as long as it was the employee who requested, or bargained, that

the contract have a definite date of termination, or that the fixed -term contract be freely

entered into by the employer and the employee, then the validity of the fixed-term contract will

be upheld.

GMA Network, Inc. v Pabriga, et al., G.R. No. 176419 (2013)

Petitioners allegation that respondents were merely substitutes or what they call pinch -hitters(which means that they were employed to take the place of regular employees of petitioner who

were absent or on leave) does not change the fact that their jobs cannot be considered projects

within the purview of the law. Every industry, even public offices, has to deal with securing

substitutes for employees who are absent or on leave. Such tasks, whether performed by the usual

employee or by a substitute, cannot be considered separate and distinct from the other

undertakings of the company. While it is managements prerogative to device a method to deal

with this issue, such prerogative is not absolute and is limited to systems wherein employees are


4/31

Labor Law

not ingeniously and methodically deprived of their constitutionally protected right to security of

tenure.

Avelino Lambo vs NLRC. G.R. No. 111042 October 26, 1999

There is no dispute that petitioners were employees of private respondents although they were

paid not on the basis of time spent on the job but according to the quantity and the quality of

work produced by them. There are two categories of employees paid by results: (1) those whose

time and performance are supervised by the employer. (Here, there is an element of control and

supervision over the manner as to how the work is to be performed. A piece-rate worker belongs

to this category especially if he performs his work in the company premises.); and (2) those whose

time and performance are unsupervised. (Here, the employers control is over the result of the

work. Workers on pakyao and takay basis belong to this group.) Both classes of workers are paid

per unit accomplished. Piece-rate payment is generally practiced in garment factories where work

is done in the company premises, while payment on pakyao and takay basis is commonly observed

in the agricultural industry, such as in sugar plantations where the work is performed in bulk or in

volumes difficult to quantify. Petitioners belong to the first category, i.e., supervised employees.

PCL Shipping Philippine, Inc. and U-Ming Marine Transport Corporation, vs NLRC. G.R. No.

153031,December 14, 2006

With respect, however, to the award of overtime pay, the correct criterion in determining whether

or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not whether they were on board and cannot leave

ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether they actually rendered service in

excess of said number of hours. In the present case, the Court finds that private respondent is not

entitled to overtime pay because he failed to present any evidence to prove that he rendered

service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day.

Bisig Manggawa sa Tryco, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 151309 October 15, 2008

D.O. No. 21 sanctions the waiver of overtime pay in consideration of the benefits that the

employees will derive from the adoption of a compressed workweek scheme, thus:The

compressed workweek scheme was originally conceived for establishments wishing to save on

energy costs, promote greater work efficiency and lower the rate of employee absenteeism,

among others. Workers favor the scheme considering that it would mean savings on the

increasing cost of transportation fares for at least one (1) day a week; savings on meal and snack

expenses; longer weekends, or an additional 52 off-days a year, that can be devoted to rest,

leisure, family responsibilities, studies and other personal matters, and that it will spare them for

at least another day in a week from certain inconveniences that are the normal incidents of

employment, such as commuting to and from the workplace, travel time spent, exposure to dust

and motor vehicle fumes, dressing up for work, etc. Thus, under this scheme, the generallyobserved workweek of six (6) days is shortened to five (5) days but prolonging the working hours

from Monday to Friday without the employer being obliged for pay overtime premium

compensation for work performed in excess of eight (8) hours on weekdays, in exchange for the

benefits abovecited that will accrue to the employees. Moreover, the adoption of a compressed

workweek scheme in the company will help temper any inconvenience that will be caused the

petitioners by their transfer to a farther workplace.


5/31

Labor Law

Rosario A. Gaa vs CA G.R. No. L-44169 Dec. 3, 1985

The term "wages" differs from the term "salary." Wages apply to compensation for manual labor,

skilled or unskilled, paid at stated times and measured by the day, week, month or season; while

salary denotes a higher grade of employment or a superior grade of services and implies a position

or office. By contrast, the term "wages" indicates a considerable pay for a lower and less

responsible character of employment, while "salary" is suggestive of a larger and more important

service

The distinction between salary and wage in Gaa vs CA was only for the purpose of Art. 1708 of the

Civil Code which provides that "the laborers' wage shall not be subject to execution or attachment

except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing, and medical attendance.

Our Haus Realty Development Corporation v. Alexander Parian, et al., G.R. No. 204651, 06 August

2014

The benefit or privilege given to the employee which constitutes an extra remuneration above

and over his basic or ordinary earning or wage is supplement; and when said benefit or privilege ispart of the laborers' basic wages, it is a facility. The distinction lies not so much in the kind of

benefit or item (food, lodging, bonus or sick leave) given, but in the purpose for which it is given.

In the case at bench, the items provided were given freely by SLL for the purpose of maintaining

the efficiency and health of its workers while they were working at their respective projects.

Ultimately, the real difference lies not on the kind of the benefit but on the purpose why it was

given by the employer. If it is primarily for the employees gain, then the benefit is a facility; if its

provision is mainly for the employers advantage, then it is a supplement. Again, this is to ensure

that employees are protected in circumstances where the employer designates a benefit as

deductible from the wages even though it clearly works to the employers greater convenience or

advantage.

Under the purpose test, substantial consideration must be given to the nature of the employers

business in relation to the character or type of work performed by the employees involved.

Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Company v Glyza Esteban, G.R. No. 192582, 7 April 2014

The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, meanwhile, provides:

SECTION 14. Deduction for loss or damage. - Where the employer is engaged in a

trade, occupation or business where the practice of making deductions or requiring

deposits is recognized to answer for the reimbursement of loss or damage to tools,

materials, or equipment supplied by the employer to the employee, the employer maymake wage deductions or require the employees to make deposits from which

deductions shall be made, subject to the following conditions:

(a) That the employee concerned is clearly shown to be responsible for the loss or

damage;

(b) That the employee is given reasonable opportunity to show cause why deduction

should not be made;


6/31


7/31

Labor Law

eliminated by the employer, we find that jurisprudence has not laid down any rule requiring a

specific minimum number of years. In Davao Fruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions, the

company practice lasted for six years. In Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez,

the employer, for three years and nine months, approved the commutation to cash of the

unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits of its intermittent workers. In Tiangco v.

Leogardo, Jr., the employer carried on the practice of giving a fixed monthly emergency

allowance from November 1976 to February 1980, or three years and four months. In Sevilla

Trading Company v. Semana, the employer kept the practice of including non-basic benefits such

as paid leaves for unused sick leave and vacation in the computation of their 13th-month pay for

at least two years.

With the payment of US dollar commissions having ripened into a company practice, there is no

way that the commissions due to Delmo were to be paid in US dollars or their equivalent in

Philippine currency determined at the time of the sales. To rule otherwise would be to cause an

unjust diminution of the commissions due and owing to Delmo.

Bankard Employees Union-Workers Alliance Trade Unions vs NLRC. G.R. No. 140689 February 17,

2004

Even assuming that there is a decrease in the wage gap between the pay of the old employees and

the newly hired employees, to Our mind said gap is not significant as to obliterate or result in

severe contraction of the intentional quantitative differences in the salary rates between the

employee group. As already stated, the classification under the wage structure is based on the

rank of an employee, not on seniority. For this reason, ,wage distortion does not appear to exist.

Rogelio Reyes vs NLRC. G.R. No. 160233, August 8, 2007

Under the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree 851, the following

compensations are deemed not part of the basic salary:

a) Cost-of-living allowances granted pursuant to Presidential Decree 525 and Letter of Instruction

No. 174;b) Profit sharing payments;c) All allowances and monetary benefits which are not

considered or integrated as part of the regular basic salary of the employee at the time of the

promulgation of the Decree on December 16, 1975.

Producers Bank v. NLRC. G.R. No. 100701. March 28, 2001

Bonus is not demandable as a matter of right. It is a management prerogative, given in addition to

what is ordinarily received by or strictly due to the recipient.

Philipiine Telegraph vs. Laplana. G.R. No. 76645; July 23, 1991

It is the employers prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its employees

qualifications, aptitudes, and competence, to move them around in the various areas of its

business operations in order to ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit to the

company. When an employees transfer is not unreasonable, nor inconvenient or prejudicial to

him, and it does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of his salaries, benefits and other

privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal.


8/31

Labor Law

UE v. PEPANIO, G.R. No. 193897, January 23, 2013

The requirement of a masteral degree for tertiary education teachers is not unreasonable. The

operation of educational institutions involves public interest. The government has a right to

ensure that only qualified persons, in possession of sufficient academic knowledge and teaching

skills, are allowed to teach in such institutions. Government regulation in this field of human

activity is desirable for protecting, not only the students, but the public as well from ill-prepared

teachers, who are lacking in the required scientific or technical knowledge. They may be required

to take an examinationor to possess postgraduate degrees as prerequisite to employment.

Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 125792; November 9, 1998

In legitimate job contracting, no employer-employee relation exists between the principal and

the job contractor's employees. The principal is responsible to the job contractor's employees only

for the proper payment of wages. But in labor-only contracting, an employer-employee relation is

created by law between the principal and the labor-only contractor's employees, such that the

former is responsible to such employees, as if he or she had directly employed them

Vigilla, et al. v Philippine College of Criminology, Inc., G.R. No. 200094 (2013)

In legitimate job contracting, the principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the

job contractor only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay

the same. On the other hand, in labor-only contracting, the principal employer becomes solidarily

liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees. In this case, the

releases, waivers and quitclaims executed by employees in favor of the labor-only contractor

redounded to the benefit of the principal.

San Miguel Corp. vs. MAERC Integrated Systems. G.R. No. 144672; July 10, 2003

The employer is deemed the direct employer and is made liable to the employees of the

contractor for a more comprehensive purpose (wages, monetary claims, and all other benefits in

the Labor Code such as SSS/Medicare/Pag-Ibig). The labor-only contractor is deemed merely an

agent. A finding that a contractor is a labor-only contractor is equivalent to declaringthat there

is an ER-EE relationship between the principal and the employees of the labor-only contractor.

Cheryll Santos Leus v St. Scholasticas College Westgrove, et al., G.R. No. 187226, 28 January 2015

That an employee was employed by a Catholic educational institution per se does not absolutely

determine whether her pregnancy out of wedlock is disgraceful or immoral. There is still a

necessity to determine whether the petitioners pregnancy out of wedlock is considereddisgraceful or immoral in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct. To stress, pre-marital

sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no impediment to marry each other,

and, consequently, conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular

view of morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral conduct under Section 94(e) of the

1992 MRPS.

Duncan vs. Glaxo Wellcome. G.R. No. 162994; September 17, 2004


9/31

Labor Law

Prohibition of marriage or existing or future relationships between employees of competing

companies is not violative of the equal protection clause.

Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 200575

(2014)

Cabiles contention that his employment with Intel HK is a continuation of his service with Intel

Phil alleging that it was but an assignment by his principal employer, similar to his assignments to

Intel Arizona and Intel Chengdu is untenable.

Eugene Arabit, et al. v Jardine Pacific Finance, Inc., G.R. No. 181719, 21 April 2014

It is illogical for Jardine to terminate the petitioners employment and replace them with

contractual employees. The replacement effectively belies Jardines claim that the petitioners

positions were abolished due to superfluity. Redundancy could have been justified if the functions

of the petitioners were transferred to other existing employees of the company.

To dismiss the petitioners and hire new contractual employees as replacements necessarily give

rise to the sound conclusion that the petitioners services have not really become in excess of what

Jardines business requires. To replace the petitioners who were all regular employees with

contractual ones would amount to a violation of their right to security of tenure.

Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. vs. Bardaje, G.R. No. 170811; April 24, 2007

Although fighting within company premises may constitute serious misconduct (possible ground

for disciplinary actions), not every fight with in company premises in which an employee is

involved automatically warrant dismissal from service.

Punzal vs. ETSI Technologies. G.R. No. 170384-85. March 9, 2007

Halloween invitation sent out by employee for office trick-or-treating without clearance from

higher management is considered misbehavior. The circumstances in the case were differentiated

from Samson vs. NLRC where the offensive remarks were verbally made during informal Christmas

gathering.

Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc. v. Virginia E. Pacia, March 2011

Petitioner employer ordered the respondent employee to prepare checks for payment of

petitioners obligations. Respondent did not immediately comply with the instruction since

petitioner employer had no sufficient funds to cover the checks. Petitioner employer dismissedrespondent employee for willful disobedience. The Court held that respondent employee was

illegally dismissed. Though there is nothing unlawful in the directive of petitioner employer to

prepare checks in payment of petitioners obligations, respondent employees initial reluctance to

prepare the checks, although seemingly disrespectful and defiant, was for honest and well

intentioned reasons. Protecting the petitioner employer from liability under the Bouncing Checks

Law was foremost in her mind. It was not wrongful or willful. Neither can it be considered an

obstinate defiance of company authority. The Court took into consideration that respondent


10/31

Labor Law

employee, despite her initial reluctance, eventually did prepare the checks on the same day she

was tasked to do it.

Gonzales vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 131653; March 26, 2001

The act constituting the breach must be work-related such as would show the employee

concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.

Jardine Davies vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 106915; August 31, 1993

For abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination of employment there must be a

deliberate unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. This refusal must be

clearly shown. Mere absence is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by overt acts pointing to

the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore.

SME Bank, Inc., et al. v De Guzman, et al., G.R. No. 184517 (2013)

While resignation letters containing words of gratitude may indicate that the employees were notcoerced into resignation, this fact alone is not conclusive proof that they intelligently, freely and

voluntarily resigned. To rule that resignation letters couched in terms of gratitude are, by

themselves, conclusive proof that the employees intended to relinquish their posts would open

the floodgates to possible abuse. In order to withstand the test of validity, resignations must be

made voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing the office, coupled with an act of

relinquishment. Therefore, in order to determine whether the employees truly intended to resign

from their respective posts, we cannot merely rely on the tenor of the resignation letters, but must

take into consideration the totality of circumstances in each particular case.

Sanoh Fulton Phils., Inc., et al. v Bernardo, et al., G.R. No. 187214 (2013)

A lull caused by lack of orders or shortage of materials must be of such nature as would severely

affect the continued business operations of the employer to the detriment of all and sundry if not

properly addressed. Sanoh asserts that cancelled orders of wire condensers led to the phasing out

of the Wire Condenser Department, which triggered retrenchment. Sanoh presented the letters

of cancellation given by Matsushita and Sanyo as evidence of cancelled orders. The evidence

presented by Sanoh barely established the connection between the cancelled orders and the

projected business losses that may be incurred by Sanoh.

Hocheng Philippines Corporation v Antonio M. Farrales, G.R. No. 211497, 18 March 2015

Theft committed by an employee against a person other than his employer, if proven by

substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to serious misconduct. The misconduct to be seriousmust be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such

misconduct, however serious, must, nevertheless, be in connection with the employees work to

constitute just cause for his separation.

Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. v Janrie C. Dailig, G.R. No. 204761, 2 April 2014


11/31

Labor Law

A floating status of a security guard for more than six months constitutes constructive dismissal.

The temporary inactivity or "floating status" of security guards should continue only for six

months. Otherwise, the security agency concerned could be liable for constructive dismissal. The

failure of petitioner to give respondent a work assignment beyond the reasonable six-month

period makes it liable for constructive dismissal.

Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation and/or Ma. Teresa Marcelo v Armando D.

Serrano, G.R. No. 198538, 29 September 2014

It is manifestly unfair and unacceptable to immediately declare the mere lapse of the six-month

period of floating status as a case of constructive dismissal, without looking into the peculiar

circumstances that resulted in the security guards failure to assume another post. This is

especially true in the present case where the security guards own refusal to accept a non -VIP

detail was the reason that he was not given an assignment within the six-month period. The

security agency, Exocet, should not then be held liable for constructive dismissal.

Philippine Sheet Metal Workers Union vs. CIR. G.R. No. L-2028; April 28, 1949

Reduction of the number of workers in a companys factory made necessary by the introduction of

machinery in the manufacture of its products is justified. There can be no question as to the right

of the manufacturer to use new labor-saving devices with a view to effecting more economy and

efficiency in its method of production.

Oriental Petroleum Minerals Corp. vs. Fuentes. G.R. No. 151818. October 14, 2005

Standards to Justify Retrenchment:

1.

The losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent;

2.

The substantial loss apprehended must be reasonably imminent. It be reasonably

necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses;3. The employer should have taken other measures prior or parallel to retrenchment to

forestall losses;

4. The alleged losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses must be proved

by sufficient and convincing evidence.

BPI v. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION DAVAO, G.R. No. 164301, October 19, 2011

By upholding the automatic assumption of the non-surviving corporations existing employment

contracts by the surviving corporation in a merger, the Court strengthens judicial protection of

the right to security of tenure of employees affected by a merger and avoids confusion regarding

the status of their various benefits which were among the chief objections of our dissenting

colleagues. However, nothing in this Resolution shall impair the right of an employer to terminatethe employment of the absorbed employees for a lawful or authorized cause or the right of such

an employee to resign, retire or otherwise sever his employment, whether before or after the

merger, subject to existing contractual obligations. In this manner, Justice Brions theory of

automatic assumption may be reconciled with the majoritys concerns with the successor

employers prerogative to choose its employees and the prohibition against involuntary servitude.

King of Kings Transport vs. Mamac. G.R. No. 166208. June 29, 2007


12/31

Labor Law

In order to intelligently prepare the employees for their explanation and defenses, the notice

should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as the basis for

the charge against the employee a general description of the change will not suffice.

Esguerra vs. Valle Verde Country Club. G.R. No. 173012. June 13, 2012

The law does not require that an intention to terminate ones employment should be included in

the first notice. It is enough that employees are properly apprised of the charges brought against

them so they can properly prepare their defenses; it is only during the second notice that the

intention to terminate ones employment should be explicitly stated

Lavador vs. J Marketing Corporation and Soyao. G.R. No. 157757; June 28, 2005

A hearing or conference should be held during which the employee concerned, with the

assistance of counsel, if the employee so desires, is given the opportunity to respond to the

charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.

AGABON v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004

The violation of the petitioners right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants

the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is

addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.

Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at

P30,000.00. We believe this form of damages would serve to deter employers from future

violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. At the very least, it provides a

vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter under the Labor Code

and its Implementing Rules.

Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot. G.R. No. 151378.March 28, 2005

If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer failed to comply with

the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the

dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee. On the other hand,

if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed to

comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process

was initiated by the employers exercise of his management prerogative.

Tangga-an v Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 180636 (2013)

Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employees full backwages shall be inclusive ofallowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent. It is the obligation of the employer to

pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the whole amount of the salaries or wages, plus all

other benefits and bonuses and general increases, to which he would have been normally entitled

had he not been dismissed and had not stopped working.

Reyes, et al. v RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No 193756 2013)


13/31

Labor Law

Backwages and reinstatement are separate and distinct reliefs given to an illegally dismissed

employee in order to alleviate the economic damage brought about by the employees dismissal.

Reinstatement is a restoration to a state from which one has been removed or separated while

the payment of backwages is a form of relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of

the unlawful dismissal. Therefore, the award of one does not bar the other.

Crisanto F. Castro, Jr. vs Ateneo De Naga University, et al., G.R. No. 175293, 23 July 2014

The Court holds that the order of reinstatement of the petitioner was not rendered moot and

academic. He remained entitled to accrued salaries from notice of the LA's order of reinstatement

until reversal thereof. In Islriz Trading v. Capada, we even clarified that the employee could be

barred from claiming accrued salaries only when the failure to reinstate him was without the fault

of the employer.

Considering that the respondents reinstated the petitioner only in November 2002, and that their

inability to reinstate him was without valid ground, they were liable to pay his salaries accruing

from the time of the decision of the LA (i.e., September 3, 2001) until his reinstatement in

November 2002. It did not matter that the respondents had yet to exercise their option to choosebetween actual or payroll reinstatement at that point because the order of reinstatement was

immediately executory.

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Reynaldo V. Paz, G.R. No. 192924, 26 November 2014

The rule is that the employee is entitled to reinstatement salaries notwithstanding the reversal of

the LA decision granting him said relief. The test is two-fold: (1) there must be actual delay or the

fact that the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and (2)

the delay must not be due to the employers unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to the

employers unjustified refusal, the employer may still be required to pay the salaries

notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor Arbiters decision.

A scrutiny of the circumstances, however, will show that the delay in reinstating the respondent

was not due to the unjustified refusal of PAL to abide by the order but because of the constraints

of corporate rehabilitation. The inopportune event of PALs entering rehabilitation receivership

justifies the delay or failure to comply with the reinstatement order of the LA. In light of the fact

that PALs failure to comply with the reinstatement order was justified by the exigencies of

corporation rehabilitation, the respondent may no longer claim salaries which he should have

received during the period that the LA decision ordering his reinstatement is still pending appeal

until it was overturned by the NLRC.

Globe Mackay v. NLRC. G.R. No. 82511; March 3, 1992

When the employer can no longer trust the employee and vice-versa, or there were imputations

of bad faith to each other, reinstatement could not effectively serve as a remedy. This doctrine

applies only to positions which require trust and confidence.

Wenphil Corporation vs. Abing, G.R. No. 207983, 7 April 2014


14/31

Labor Law

Even outside the theoretical trappings of the discussion and into the mundane realities of human

experience, the "refund doctrine" easily demonstrates how a favorable decision by the Labor

Arbiter could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. The employee, to make both ends

meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received during the pendency of the appeal,

only to end up having to refund the sum in case of a final unfavorable decision. It is mirage of a

stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of insolvency.

Unilever Philippines v Rivera, G.R. No. 201701 (2013)

As a general rule, an employee who has been dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated

under Article 282 of the Labor Code is not entitled to a separation pay. In exceptional cases,

however, the Court has granted separation pay to a legally dismissed employee as an act of social

justice or on equitable grounds. In both instances, it is required that the dismissal (1) was not

for serious misconduct; and (2) did not reflect on the moral character of the employee. In this

case, the transgressions were serious offenses that warranted employees dismissal from

employment. Hence, employee is not entitled to separation pay.

Agricultural and Industrial Supplies Corp. et al vs. Jueber P. Siazar, G.R. No. 177970 August 25,

2010

In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in lieu of reinstatement, the

amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to one month salary for every year of service reckoned

from the first day of employment until the finality of the decision. Payment of separation pay is in

addition to payment of backwages. And if separation pay is awarded instead of reinstatement,

backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal termination up to the finality of the

decision.

Zenaida Paz v Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 199554, 18 February 2015

The award of financial assistance to an employee who rendered almost three decades of

dedicated service to an employer without a single transgression or malfeasance of any company

rule or regulation, coupled with her old age and infirmity which now weaken her chances of

employment is justified and allowed under special circumstances. These circumstances

indubitably merit equitable concessions, via the principle of compassionate justice for the

working class.

Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative Inc. vs NLRC. G.R. No. 163561, July 24, 2007

Although long years of service might generally be considered for the award of separation benefits

or some form of financial assistance to mitigate the effects of termination, this case is not the

appropriate instance for generosity under the Labor Code nor under our prior decisions. The factthat private respondent served petitioner for more than twenty years with no negative record

prior to his dismissal, in our view of this case, does not call for such award of benefits, since his

violation reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty and worse, betrayal of the company. If an

employees length of service is to be regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of

dismissal, such gesture will actually become a prize for disloyalty, distorting the meaning of social

justice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of undesirables.


15/31

Labor Law

Conrado A. Lim v. HMR Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 201483, 04 August 2014

No essential change is being made (in a final judgment) by a recomputation because such is a

necessary consequence which flows from the nature of the illegality of the dismissal. To reiterate,

a recomputation, or an original computation, if no previous computation was made, as in the

present case, is a part of the law that is read into the decision, namely, Article 279 of the Labor

Code and established jurisprudence. Article 279 provides for the consequences of illegal

dismissal, one of which is the payment of full backwages until actual reinstatement, qualified only

by jurisprudence when separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is allowed, where the finality of the

illegal dismissal decision instead becomes the reckoning point.

The nature of an illegal dismissal case requires that backwages continue to add on until full

satisfaction. The computation required to reflect full satisfaction does not constitute an alteration

or amendment of the final decision being implemented as the illegal dismissal ruling stands. Thus,

in the present case, a computation of backwages until actual reinstatement is not a violation of

the principle of immutability of final judgments.

Zuellig Pharma Corporation v Sibal, et al., G.R. NO. 173587 (2013)

In the present case, the CBA contains specific provisions which effectively bar the availment of

retirement benefits once the employees have chosen separation pay or vice versa. Section 2 of

Article XIV explicitly states that any payment of retirement gratuity shall be chargeable against

separation pay. Clearly, respondents cannot have both retirement gratuity and separation pay, as

selecting one will preclude recovery of the other. To illustrate the mechanics of how Section 2 of

Article XIV bars double recovery, if the employees choose to retire, whatever amount they will

receive as retirement gratuity will be charged against the separation pay they would have

received had their separation from employment been for a cause which would entitle them toseverance pay. These causes are enumerated in Section 3, Article XIV of the CBA (i.e.,

retrenchment, closure of business, merger, redundancy, or installation of labor-saving device).

However, if the cause of the termination of their employment was any of the causes enumerated

in said Section 3, they could no longer claim retirement gratuity as the fund from which the same

would be taken had already been used in paying their separation pay. Put differently, employees

who were separated from the company cannot have both retirement gratuity and separation pay

as there is only one fund from which said benefits would be taken. Inarguably, Section 2 of Article

XIV effectively disallows recovery of both separation pay and retirement gratuity. Consequently,

respondents are entitled only to one. Since they have already chosen and accepted redundancy

pay and have executed the corresponding Release and Quitclaim, they are now barred from

claiming retirement gratuity.

Grace Christian High School, represented by its Principal, Dr. James Tan v Filipinas A. Lavandera,

G.R. No. 177845, 20 August 2014

RA 7641, which was enacted on December 9, 1992, amended Article 287 of the Labor Code,

providing for the rules on retirement pay to qualified private sector employees in the absence of

any retirement plan in the establishment. The said law states that an employees retireme nt

benefits under any collective bargaining [agreement (CBA)] and other agreements shall not be


16/31

Labor Law

less than those provided under the same that is, at least one-half () month salary for every

year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year and that

[u]nless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half () month salary shall mean

fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th

month pay and the cash equivalent of not

more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.

The foregoing provision is applicable where (a) there is no CBA or other applicable agreement

providing for retirement benefits to employees, or (b) there is a CBA or other applicable

agreement providing for retirement benefits but it is below the requirement set by law. Verily, the

determining factor in choosing which retirement scheme to apply is still superiority in terms of

benefits provided.

The Court, in the case of Elegir v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., has recently affirmed that one-half ()

month salary means 22.5 days: 15 days plus 2.5 days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th

month pay and the remaining 5 days for [SIL]. The Court sees no reason to depart from this

interpretation. GCHS argument therefore that the 5 days SIL should be likewise pro-rated to their

1/12 equivalent must fail.

Noriel R. Montierro v Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 210634, January 14, 2015

When a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness for

work shall be determined by the company-designated physician. The physician has 120 days, or

240 days, if validly extended, to make the assessment. If the physician appointed by the seafarer

disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, the opinion of a third doctor

may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer, whose decision shall be final and

binding on them.

Sealanes Marine Services, Inc., et al. v Arnel G. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 214132, 18 February 2015

For the purpose of determining temporary total disability, the seafarer shall submit himself to a

post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working

days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written

notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to

comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim

the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third

doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctors decision

shall be final and binding on both parties.

LABOR RELATIONS

Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation vs. Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R.

No. 162355, August 14, 2009

Article 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor organization as any union or association of

employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing

with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. Upon compliance with all the

documentary requirements, the Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the applicant

labor organization a certificate indicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor


17/31

Labor Law

organizations. Any applicant labor organization shall acquire legal personality and shall be

entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon

issuance of the certificate of registration.

T H Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation, et al. v T H Shopfitters Corporation

Corporation/Gin Queen Workers Union, et al., G.R. No. 191714 (2014)

The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of

their right to self-organization, is, whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may

reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees rights; and that it is not

necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by

statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that the anti-union

conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective

bargaining.

Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation vs. Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R.

No. 162355, August 14, 2009

A bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of

the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicated to be the best

suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining

provisions of the law. The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collective

bargaining unit are:

(1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);(2) affinity and unity of the employees interest,

such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working

conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule);

(3) prior collective bargaining history; and

(4)

similarity of employment status.

Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc., vs DOLE. G.R. No. 157117,November 20, 2006

Under Article 245 of the Labor Code, supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in a

labor union of rank-and-file employees. The supervisory employees are allowed to form their own

union but they are not allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of potential conflicts of

interest. Further, to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or

where the supervisors labor union would represent conflicting interests, a local supervisors union

should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of unions of rank-and-file

employees where that federation actively participates in the union activity within the company.

Thus, the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file union.

The prohibition extends to a supervisors local union applying for membership in a national

federation the members of which include local unions of rank-and-file employees.

San Miguel Foods, Inc. vs. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union. G.R. No. 146206.

August 1, 2011

The general rule is that an employer has no standing to question the process of certification

election, since this is the sole concern of the workers. Law and policy demand that employers take

a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining representative of employees


18/31


19/31

Labor Law

misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of

union members.

Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free workers vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., G.R. No.

190515. June 6, 2011

A local union may disaffiliate at any time from its mother federation, absent any showing that the

same is prohibited under its constitution or rules. Such disaffiliation, however, does not result in it

losing its legal personality. A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with which it

is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its

members. The mere act of affiliation does not divest the local union of its own personality, neither

does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the local union. It only gives

rise to a contract of agency where the former acts in representation of the latter. In the present

case, whether the FFW went against the will of its principal (the member-employees) by pursuing

the case despite the signing of the MOA, is not for the Court, nor for respondent employer to

determine, but for the Union and FFW to resolve on their own pursuant to their principal-agent

relationship. Moreover, the issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union dispute which must be resolved

in a different forum in an action at the instance of either or both the FFW and the union or a rivallabor organization, but not the employer as in this case.

Legend International Resorts Limited v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda. G.R. No. 169754,

February 23, 2011

The pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does not preclude collective

bargaining, and that an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of

the petition for cancellation of the unions registration because at the time the respondent union

filed its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order cancelling its

registration. The legitimacy of the legal personality of respondent cannot be collaterally attacked

in a petition for certification election proceeding but only through a separate action institutedparticularly for the purpose of assailing it.

The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered and vested

with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate of

registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral attack. It

may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5

of

Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.

Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, G.R. No.

170007, 7 April 2014

The duty to bargain does not compel any party to accept a proposal or to make any concession.

While the purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement between the

employer and the employees union resulting in a binding contract between t he parties, the

failure to reach an agreement after negotiations continued for a reasonable period does not mean

lack of good faith. The laws invite and contemplate a collective bargaining contract but do not

compel one. For after all, a CBA, like any contract is a product of mutual consent and not of

compulsion. As such, the duty to bargain does not include the obligation to reach an agreement.


20/31

Labor Law

Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing United Workers of the Phils v. NLRC. G.R.

No. 113856, Sept. 7, 1998

There is no perfect test of good faith (GF) in bargaining. The GF or BF is an inference to be drawn

from the facts and is largely a matter for the NLRCs expertise. The charge of BF should be raisedwhile the bargaining is in progress. With the execution of the CBA, BF can no longer be imputed

upon any of the parties thereto. All provisions in the CBA are supposed to have been jointly and

voluntarily incorporated therein by the parties. This is not a case where private respondent

exhibited an indifferent attitude towards CB because the negotiations were not the unilateral

activity of petitioner union. The CBA is good enough that private respondent exerted reasonable

effort of GF bargaining.

FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) Vs.

Sama-samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and General Labor

Organization (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO. G.R. No. 176249, November 27, 2009

While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original five-year term together with all otherCBA provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it a change

in the unions exclusive collective bargaining status. By express provision of the above -quoted

Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years and the representation

status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree upon. In other words, despite an

agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five y ears, either as an original provision or by

amendment, the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining status is effective only for five years and

can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the CBAs first five years.

Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Services Inc., v. Confessor. G.R. No. 111809, May 5, 1997

The signing of the CBA does not determine whether the agreement was entered into within the 6month period from the date of expiration of the old CBA. In the present case, there was already a

meeting of the minds between the company and the union prior to the end of the 6 month period

after the expiration of the old CBA. Hence, such meeting of the mind is sufficient to conclude that

an agreement has been reached within the 6 month period as provided under Art. 253 A of the

LC.

Teodoro S. Miranda, Jr. vs. Asian Terminals, Inc. and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174316, June 23,

2009

A shop steward leads to the conclusion that it is a position within the union, and not within the

company. A shop steward is appointed by the union in a shop, department, or plant and serves as

representative of the union, charged with negotiating and adjustment of grievances of employees

with the supervisor of the employer. He is the representative of the union members in a building

or other workplace. Blacks Law Dictionary defines a shop steward as a union official elected to

represent members in a plant or particular department. His duties include collection of dues,

recruitment of new members and initial negotiations for the settlement of grievances. A judgment

of reinstatement of the petitioner to the position of union Shop Steward would have no practical

legal effect since it cannot be enforced. Based on the requirements imposed by law and the

APCWU-ATI CBA, and in the nature of things, the subsequent separation of the petitioner from


21/31

Labor Law

employment with respondent ATI has made his reinstatement to union Shop Steward incapable of

being enforced.

Herminigildo Inguillom, et al. vs. First Philippine Scales, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 165407, June 5, 2009

Union security is a generic term, which is applied to and comprehends closed shop, union

shop, maintenance of membership or any other form of agreement which imposes upon

employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting

employment. There is union shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union

within a certain period as a condition for their continued employment. There is maintenance of

membership shop when employees, who are union members as of the effective date of the

agreement, or who thereafter become members, must maintain union membership as a condition

for continued employment until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or

the agreement is terminated. A closed-shop, on the other hand, may be defined as an enterprise

in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no

person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she

is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a

union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part.

In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the Union Security Clause, the

employer needs only to determine and prove that:

(1) the union security clause is applicable;

(2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and

(3) there is sufficient evidence to support the unions decision to expel the employee from the

union or company.

Standard Chartered Bank v. Confessor. G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004

Whether or not the union is engaged in blue

sky bargaining is determined by the evidencepresented by the union as to its economic demands. Thus, if the union requires exaggerated or

unreasonable economic demands, then it is guilty of ULP. In order to be considered as unfair labor

practice, there must be proof that the demands made by the union were exaggerated or

unreasonable. In the minutes of the meeting show that the union based its economic proposals on

data of rank-and-file employees and the prevailing economic benefits received by bank

employees from other foreign banks doing business in the Philippines and other branches of the

bank in the Asian region. Hence, it cannot be said that the union was guilty of ULP for blue-sky

bargaining.

General Santos Coca Cola Plant Free Workers Union-Tupas vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.,

INC. G.R. No. 178647. Feb. 13, 2007

Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to organize. The prohibited

acts are related to the workers right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA. Without

that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practices.

Arellano University Employees and Workers Union vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139940,

September 19, 2006


22/31

Labor Law

To constitute ULP, however, violations of the CBA must be gross. Gross violation of the CBA, under

Article 261 of the Labor Code, means flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the

economic provisions thereof. Evidently, the University can not be faulted for ULP as it in good

faith merely heeded the above-said request of Union members.

Salunga v. CIR. G.R. No. L

22456, Sep. 27, 1967

Labor unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants for membership and a

closed shop applicants provision will not justify the employer in discharging, or a union in

insisting upon the discharge of an employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to membership

without any reasonable ground thereof.

Phil. Can Co. v. CIR. G.R. No. L

3021, July 13, 1950

A coercive measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands. The idea behind a strike is

that a company engaged in a profitable business cannot afford to have its production or activities

interrupted, much less, paralyzed.

Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc., etc. vs. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-

National Union of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant, etc., G.R. No. 165756, June 5, 2009

The requisites for a valid strike are:

(a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the intended date thereof or 15 days in

case of ULP;(b) a strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the

bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; and

(c) a notice to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended

strike. The requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders thestrike illegal.

Club Filipino, Inc., et al. v Benjamin Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 168406, January 2015

The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code states the companys counter-proposal shall be

attached to the notice of strike "as far as practicable." In this case, attaching the counter-proposal

of the company to the notice of strike of the union was not practicable. It was absurd to expect

the union to produce the company's counter-proposal which it did not have. Indeed, compliance

with the requirement was impossible because no counter-proposal existed at the time the union

filed a notice of strike.

NSFW vs. Ovejera. G.R. No. 59743, May 31, 1982

The cooling off period in Art. 264(c) and the 7 day strike ban after the strike vote report

prescribed in Art. 264 (f) were meant to be mandatory. The law provides that the labor union may

strike should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from

the filing of the notice, this clearly implies that the union may not strike before the lapse of the

cooling off period. The cooling off period is for the Ministry of Labor and Employment to exert


23/31


24/31


25/31

Labor Law

No backwages will be awarded to union members as a penalty for their participation in the illegal

strike. As for the union officers, for knowingly participating in an illegal strike, the law mandates

that a union officer may be terminated from employment and they are not entitled to any relief.

MSF Tire Rubber v. CA, G.R. 128632, Aug. 5, 1999

The innocent by stander must show: Compliance with the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the Rules

of Court, and That it is entirely different from, without any connection whatsoever to, either

party to the dispute and, therefore, its interests are totally foreign to the context thereof.

Victor Meteoro, et al. v. Creative Creatures, Inc. G.R No. 171275, July 13, 2009

In sum, respondent contested the findings of the labor inspector during and after the inspection

and raised issues the resolution of which necessitated the examination of evidentiary matters not

verifiable in the normal course of inspection. Hence, the Regional Director was divested of

jurisdiction and should have endorsed the case to the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.

Considering, however, that an illegal dismissal case had been filed by petitioners wherein the

existence or absence of an employer-employee relationship was also raised, the CA correctlyruled that such endorsement was no longer necessary.

Honda Cars Philippines, Inc. v. Honda Cars Technical Specialist and Supervisors Union, G.R. No.

204142, 19 November 2014

The Voluntary Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to settle tax matters. The Voluntary Arbitrator has no

competence to rule on the taxability of the gas allowance and on the propriety of the withholding

of tax. These issues are clearly tax matters, and do not involve labor disputes. To be exact, they

involve tax issues within a labor relations setting as they pertain to questions of law on the

application of Section 33 (A) of the NIRC. They do not require the application of the Labor Code

or the interpretation of the MOA and/or company personnel policies.

The University of the Immaculate Conception, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 181146, January 26,

2011

Article 217 of the Labor Code states that unfair labor practices and termination disputes fall

within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. As an exception, under Article

262 the Voluntary Arbitrator, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other

labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. For the exception to

apply, there must be agreement between the parties clearly conferring jurisdiction to the

voluntary arbitrator. Such agreement may be stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement.

However, in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, it is enough that there is evidence

on record showing the parties have agreed to resort to voluntary arbitration.

Samar-Med Distribution v National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 162385 (2013)

The non-inclusion in the complaint of the issue of dismissal did not necessarily mean that the

validity of the dismissal could not be an issue. The rules of the NLRC require the submission of

verified position papers by the parties should they fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, and

bar the inclusion of any cause of action not mentioned in the complaint or position paper from the


26/31

Labor Law

time of their submission by the parties. In view of this, respondents cause of action should be

ascertained not from a reading of his complaint alone but also from a consideration and

evaluation of both his complaint and position paper.

Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd., et al. vs. Estanislao Surio, et al. G.R. No. 154213, August 23,

2012

Although Republic Act No. 8042, through its Section 10, transferred the original and exclusive

jurisdiction to hear and decide money claims involving overseas Filipino workers from the POEA to

the Labor Arbiters, the law did not remove from the POEA the original and exclusive jurisdiction to

hear and decide all disciplinary action cases and other special cases administrative in character

involving such workers. The obvious intent of Republic Act No. 8042 was to have the POEA focus

its efforts in resolving all administrative matters affecting and involving such workers. The NLRC

had no appellate jurisdiction to review the decision of the POEA in disciplinary cases involving

overseas contract workers.

Peoples Broadcasting Service vs. The Secretary of Labor and Employment. G.R. No. 179652,

March 6, 2012

If the DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with

the NLRC. If a complaint is filed with the DOLE, and it is accompanied by a claim for

reinstatement, the jurisdiction is properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor

Code, which provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over those

cases involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment,

if accompanied by a claim for reinstatement. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC, and there is still

an existing employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the DOLE. The

findings of the DOLE, however, may still be questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule

65 of the Rules of Court.

Rolando L. Cervantes vs. PAL Maritime Corporation and/or Western Shipping Agencies. G.R. No.

175209. January 16, 2013

There was substantial compliance with the NLRC Rules of Procedure when the respondents PAL

Maritime Corporation and Western Shipping Agencies, Pte., Ltd. filed, albeit belatedly, the Joint

Declaration Under Oath, which is required when an employer appeals from the Labor Arb iters

decision granting a monetary award and posts a surety bond. Under the NLRC rules, the following

requisites are required to perfect the employers appeal: (1) it must be filed within the

reglementary period; (2) it must be under oath, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee

and the posting of a cash or surety bond; and (3) it must be accompanied by typewritten or

printed copies of the memorandum of appeal, stating the grounds relied upon, the supporting

arguments, the reliefs prayed for, and a statement of the date of receipt of the appealed decision,with proof of service on the other party of said appeal. If the employer posts a surety bond, the

NLRC rules further require the submission by the employer, his or her counsel, and the bonding

company of a joint declaration under oath attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine and

that it shall be in effect until the final disposition of the case.

In the case at bar, the respondents posted a surety bond equivalent to the monetary award and

filed the notice of appeal and the appeal memorandum within the reglementary period. When


27/31

Labor Law

the NLRC subsequently directed the filing of a Joint Declaration Under Oath, the respondents

immediately complied with the said order. There was only a late submission of the Joint

Declaration. Considering that there was substantial compliance with the rules, the same may be

liberally construed. The application of technical rules may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the

demands of substantial justice.

Mcburnie v Ganzon, et al., G.R. No. 178034 (2013)

While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is subject to the conditions

that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a

reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the

filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.

The qualification effectively requires that unless the NLRC grants the reduction of the cash bond

within the 10-day reglementary period, the employer is still expected to post the cash or surety

bond securing the full amount within the said 10-day period. If the NLRC does eventually grant

the motion for reduction after the reglementary period has elapsed, the correct relief would be to

reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by the employer within the 10-day period.

AGG Trucking and/or Alex Ang Gaeid vs. Melanio B. Yuag. G.R. No. 195033, October 12, 2011

On the issue of the propriety of entertaining the Petition for Certiorari despite the prescribed

Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC, the SC found that the CA committed error when it

entertained the petition for certiorari and explained that when respondent failed to file a Motion

for Reconsideration of the NLRCs 30 November 2006 Resolution within the reglementary period,

the Resolution attained finality and could no longer be modified by the Court of Appeals.

Untimeliness in filing motions or petitions is not a mere technical or procedural defect, as

leniency regarding this requirement will impinge on the right of the winning litigant to peace of

mind resulting from the laying to rest of the controversy.

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998

Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the

NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions

for certiorariunder Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be initially filed in

the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the

appropriate forum for the relief desired.

Manila Pavilion Hotel, etc. vs. Henry Delada. G.R. No. 189947, January 25, 2011

In Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. Deputy Administrator Magsalin, the Supreme Court ruled that the

voluntary arbitrator had plenary jurisdiction and authority to interpret the agreement to arbitrateand to determine the scope of his own authority subject only, in a proper case, to the certiorari

jurisdiction of this Court. It was also held in that case that the failure of the parties to specifically

limit the issues to that which was stated allowed the arbitrator to assume jurisdiction over the

related issue. In Ludo & Luym Corporation v. Saornido, the Supreme Court recognized that

voluntary arbitrators are generally expected to decide only those questions expressly delineated

by the submission agreement; that, nevertheless, they can assume that they have the necessary

power to make a final settlement on the related issues, since arbitration is the final resort for the


28/31

Labor Law

adjudication of disputes. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that even if the specific issue brought

before the arbitrators merely mentioned the question of whether an employee was discharged

for just cause, they could reasonably assume that their powers extended beyond the

determination thereof to include the power to reinstate the employee or to grant back wages. In

the same vein, if the specific issue brought before the arbitrators referred to the date of

regularization of the employee, law and jurisprudence gave them enough leeway as well as

adequate prerogative to determine the entitlement of the employees to higher benefits in

accordance with the finding of regularization. Indeed, to require the parties to file another action

for payment of those benefits would certainly undermine labor proceedings and contravene the

constitutional mandate providing full protection to labor and speedy labor justice.

Philippine Electric Corporation v Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 168612, 10 December 2014

The rule is that a Voluntary Arbitrators award or decision shall be appealed before the Court of

Appeals within 10 days from receipt of the award or decision. Should the aggrieved party choose

to file a motion for reconsideration with the Voluntary Arbitrator, the motion must be filed within

the same 10-day period since a motion for reconsideration is filed within the period for taking an

appeal.

Peoples Broadcasting Bombo Radyo Phils) v. Secretary of Labor, et al.

GR No. 179652, May 8, 2009

It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement power somehow

has to make a determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Such

prerogatival determination, however, cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and enforcement

power itself. Indeed, such determination is merely preliminary, incidental and collateral to the

DOLEs primary function of enforcing labor standards provisions. The determination of the

existence of employer-employee relationship is still primarily lodged with the NLRC. This is the

meaning of the clause in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists in Art.128(b).

Thus, if a complaint is brought before the DOLE to give effect to the labor standards provisions of

the Labor Code or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE that there is an

existing employer-employee relationship, the DOLE exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the

NLRC. If the DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is

properly with the NLRC. If a complaint is filed with the DOLE , and it is accompanied by a claim for

reinstatement, the jurisdiction is properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor

Code, which provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over those

cases involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment,

if accompanied by a claim for reinstatement. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC, and there is still

an existing employer- employee relationship, the jurisdiction is purely with the DOLE. The findingsof the DOLE, however may still be questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of

the Rules of Court.

Manolito Barles, et al. v. Hon. Benedicto Bitonio, et al. GR No. 120270, June 16, 1999


29/31

Labor Law

The BLR shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of

either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts. As already held by the Court in

La Tondena Workers Union v. Secretary of Labor, intra-union conflicts such as examinations of

accoutns are under the jurisdiction of the BLR. However, the Rules of Procedure on Mediation-

Arbitration purpose and expressly separated or distinguished examinations of union accounts

from the genus of intra-union conflict and provided a different procedure for the resolution of the

same. Original jurisdiction over complaints for examinations of union accounts is vested on the

Regional Director and appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the former is lodged with the BLR.

This is apparent from Sections 3 and 4 of the Med-Arbitration Rules as already mentioned.

Contrast these two sections from Section 2 and Section 56 of the same rules. Section 2 expressly

vests upon Med-Arbiters original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide inter alia all other

inter-union or internal union disputes. Section 5 states that the decisions of the Med-Arbiter shall

be appealable to the DOLE Secretary. Without a doubt, the rules of Procedure on Mediation-

Arbitration did not amend or supplant substantive law but implemented and filled in details of

procedure left vacuous or ambiguous by the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.

Araullo v Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 194169 (2013)

The Writ of Execution in the instant case was procedurally irregular, as it pre-empted the NLRC

Rules which require that where further computation of the award in the decision is necessary

during the course of the execution proceedings, no Writ of Execution shall be issued until after

the computation has been approved by the Labor Arbiter in an order issued after the parties have

been duly notified and heard on the matter. When the writ was issued, there was as yet no order

approving the computation made by the NLRC Computation and Examination Unit, and there was

a pending and unresolved Motion to Recompute filed by Club Filipino. A cursory examination of

the motion reveals that it raised valid issues that required determination in order to arrive at a just

resolution, so that none of the parties would be unjustly enriched.

Virgilio Anabe v. Asian Construction. GR No. 183233, December 23, 2009

To properly construe Article 291 of the Labor Code, it is essential to ascertain the time when the

third element of a cause of action transpired. Stated differently, in the computation of the three-

year prescriptive period, a determination must be made as to the period when the act constituting

a violation of the workers right to the benefits being claimed was committed. For if the cause of

action accrued more than three (3) years before the filing of the money claim, said cause of action

has already prescribed in accordance with Article 291.

George A. Arriola v Pilipino Star .Ngayon, Inc. and/or Miguel G. Belmont, G.R. No. 175689, 13

August 2014

This court ruled that Callantas complaint for illegal dismissal had not yet prescribed. Althoughillegal dismissal is a violation of the Labor Code, it is not the "offense" contemplated in Article

290. Article 290 refers to illegal acts penalized under the Labor Code, including committing any of

the prohibited activities during strikes or lockouts, unfair labor practices, and illegal recruitment

activities. The three-year prescriptive period under Article 290, therefore, does not apply to

complaints for illegal dismissal.


30/31

Labor Law

Instead, "by way of supplement," Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines governs

complaints for illegal dismissal. Under Article 1146, an action based upon an injury to the rights of

a plaintiff must be filed within four years. This court explained:

. . . when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the

action instituted to contest the legality of one's dismissal from employment constitutes, in

essence, an action predicated "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff," as

contemplated under Art. 1146 of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four

[4] years.

This four-year prescriptive period applies to claims for backwages, not the three-year

prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. A claim for backwages, according

to this court, may be a money claim "by reason of its practical effect." Legally, however, an

award of backwages "is merely one of the reliefs which an illegally dismissed employee

prays the labor arbiter and the NLRC to render inhis favor as a consequence of the

unlawful act committed by the employer." Though it results "in the enrichment of the

individual [illegally dismissed], the award of backwages is not in redress of a private right,

but, rather, is in the nature of a command upon the employer to make public reparation

for his violation of the Labor Code."

Actions for damage

labor must read

Documents