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 the power 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; it imposes 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) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s 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

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 Sonza’s 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-CBN’s 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 Sonza’s 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 connection between 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 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, his employment 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)

Petitioner’s 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 management’s prerogative to device a method to deal with this issue, such prerogative is not absolute and is limited to systems wherein employees are 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 employer’s 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 generally observed 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.

 

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 is part 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 employee’s gain, then the benefit is a facility; if its provision is mainly for the employer’s 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 employer’s greater convenience or advantage.

 

Under the purpose test, substantial consideration must be given to the nature of the employer’s 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 may make 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;

(c) That the amount of such deduction is fair and reasonable and shall not exceed the actual loss or damage; and

(d) That the deduction from the wages of the employee does not exceed 20 percent of the employee’s wages in a week.

 

Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that Esteban was responsible for the negative variance it had in its sales for the year 2005 to 2006 and that Esteban was given the opportunity to show

cause why the deduction from her last salary should not be made. The Court cannot accept the petitioner’s statement that it is the practice in the retail industry to deduct variances from an employee’s salary, without more.

 

Lilia P. Labadan vs. Forest Hills Academy. G.R. No. 172295 December 23, 2008

Respecting petitioner’s claim for holiday pay, Forest Hills contends that petitioner failed to prove that she actually worked during specific holidays. Article 94 of the Labor Code provides, however, that(a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers; (b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate.The provision that a worker is entitled to twice his regular rate if he is required to work on a holiday implies that the provision entitling a worker to his regular rate on holidays applies even if he does not work.

 

BPI Employees union-Davao City-FUBU v Bank of the Philippine Islands, et al., G.R. No. 174912 (2013)

Contracting out of services is not illegal per se. It is an exercise of business judgment or management prerogative. Absent proof that the management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer. BPI’s policy of contracting out cashiering and bookkeeping services was considered as a valid exercise of management prerogative which is further authorized by the Central Bank in CBP Circular No. 1388, Series of 199.

 

Central Azucarera De Tarlac vs. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor Union-NLU. G.R. No. 188949, July 26, 2010

Article 100 of the Labor Code, otherwise known as the Non-Diminution Rule, mandates that benefits given to employees cannot be taken back or reduced unilaterally by the employer because the benefit has become part of the employment contract, written or unwritten. The rule against diminution of benefits applies if it is shown that the grant of the benefit is based on an express policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period of time and that the practice is consistent and deliberate. Nevertheless, the rule will not apply if the practice is due to error in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law. But even in cases of error, it should be shown that the correction is done soon after discovery of the error.

 

Netlink Computer Incorporated v Eric Delmo, G.R. No. 160827, 18 June 2014

With regard to the length of time the company practice should have been observed to constitute a voluntary employer practice that cannot be unilaterally reduced, diminished, discontinued or 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:

 

5. 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 employee’s 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.

 

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 examination or 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 declaring that there is an ER-EE relationship between the principal and the employees of the “labor-only” contractor.

 

Cheryll Santos Leus v St. Scholastica’s 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 petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful 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

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 Jardine’s 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 Jardine’s 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 petitioner’s obligations. Respondent did not immediately comply with the instruction since petitioner employer had no sufficient funds to cover the checks. Petitioner employer dismissed respondent 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 petitioner’s obligations, respondent employee’s 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 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 not coerced 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 serious must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must, nevertheless, be in connection with the employee’s 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

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 guard’s failure to assume another post. This is especially true in the present case where the security guard’s 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 company’s 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 corporation’s 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 terminate the 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 Brion’s theory of automatic assumption may be reconciled with the majority’s concerns with the successor employer’s prerogative to choose its employees and the prohibition against involuntary servitude.

 

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

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 one’s 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 one’s 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 employer’s 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 employee’s full backwages shall be inclusive of allowances 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 Guardian’s Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No 193756 (2013)

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 employee’s 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 choose between 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 employer’s unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to the employer’s unjustified refusal, the employer may still be required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s 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 PAL’s entering rehabilitation receivership justifies the delay or failure to comply with the reinstatement order of the LA. In light of the fact that PAL’s 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

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 fact that 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 employee’s 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.

 

 

 

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 to severance 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 employee’s retirement benefits under any collective bargaining [agreement (CBA)] and other agreements shall not be less than those provided” under the same – that is, at least one-half (½) 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 (½) 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 (½) 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 doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.