CASES SUMMARIES

International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) vs Hon. Leanardo A. Quisumbing, et al GR No. 128845, June 1, 2000
Collective Article XIII, Section 3, specifically provides that labor is entitled to humane conditions of work. These conditions are not restricted to the physical workplace the factory, the office or the field but include as well the manner by which employers treat their employees. Discrimination, particularly in terms of wages, is frowned upon by the Labor Code. Article 248 declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to wages in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization; Aricle II, Section 18, of the constitution mandates to afford labor full protection; The State has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital. These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts, collective bargaining agreements included, must yield to the common good. The 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. The basic test of an asserted bargaining units acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. To include foreign-hires in a bargaining unit with local-hires would not assure either group the exercise of their respective collective bargaining rights.

without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable. the CIR may be said to be free from rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: (1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's cause and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) The decision must have something to support itself; (4) The evidence must be substantial; (5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing; or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue involved, and the reason for the decision rendered. FELIX ESMALIN vs. NLRC and CARE PHILIPPINES

The Rules and Regulations implementing the Labor Code of the Philippines or P.D. 442 then enforced, *** clearly states that no employer may dismiss an employee without a prior clearance secured from the Ministry of Labor. A dismissal without said clearance shall be conclusively presumed a termination without a just cause. The dismissal of an employee must be done with just cause and without abuse of discretion. It must NOT be done in an arbitrary and despotic manner. To hold otherwise would render nugatory the security of tenure clause enshrined in the Constitution. The protection to labor and social justice provisions of the Constitution and the labor laws and rules and regulations are interpreted in favor of the exercise of labor rights. However, the Court further held that, in this instant case, reinstatement is no longer viable in view of the strained relations between petitioner-employee and private respondent-employer. Thus, the Court ordered that Esmalin be awarded with separation pay as an alternative for reinstatement.

Ang Tibay vs. CIR 69 Phil 635, G.R. No. 46496, Feb 27, 1940
The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation which is the Commonwealth Act No. 103). It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter controversy or disputes arising between, and/ or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulates the relations between them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of CA 103. the case of Goseco v. CIR, the SC had the occasion to point out that the CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and equity and substantial merits of the case,

PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS' ASSOCIATION vs. PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC. G.R. No. L-5621, March 25, 1953 As aptly pointed out by this court, there are certain cardinal primary rights which the Court of Industrial Relations must respect in the trial of every labor case. One of them is the right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. An ocular inspection is merely an auxiliary remedy the law affords the parties or the court to reach an enlightened determination of the case. But it is not the main trial nor should it exclude the presentation of other evidence which the parties may deem necessary to establish their case. Therefore, the Court finds that the required due process has not been followed when the court a quo merely acted on the strength of the ocular inspection it conducted in the premises of the respondent company.

poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has resources to secure able legal advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter stricter compliance. Social justice in these cases is not equality but protection. US vs. Ling Su Fan, 10 Phil 104 "Due process of law" is not that the law shall be according to the wishes of all the inhabitants of the state, but simply (a) That there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government; (b) That this law shall be reasonable in its operation; (c)That it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and (d) That it shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class. CASIANO SALADAS vs. FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY G.R. No. L-13419, May 30, 1960 The reasonable time essential to meet the demands of due process must be given by the "statute", not by a "bill", which is not, as yet, a law, and, hence, can grant nothing. The Court further supported the plaintiffs contention that the period of prescription should be deemed suspended from October 27, 1954 - when payment of the overtime compensation was demanded in writing from the defendant - to February 9, 1956, when the order of dismissal of Civil Case No. "-1299 became final, or for a period of one (1) year, three (3) months and fourteen (14) days. The doctrine therein laid down in Peralta is not controlling in the case at bar, for plaintiff herein was dismissed after the effective date of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which specifically and expressly provides in Article 1155 thereof for the interruption of the period of prescription, in consequence of either the filing of suit, or of a written extrajudicial demand or a written acknowledgment of the debt.

VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and JULIO SEGOVIA, respondents, G.R. No. L-25665 The due process argument is clearly devoid of merit. In Apolega v. Hizon, cited with approval the Filipino Pipe & Foundry Corp. ruling along with two other decisions. What we said further in the opinion penned by Justice Makalintal possesses relevancy: "The allegation of lack of notice and hearing cannot be sustained. Petitioner failed to controvert both claims (injury and death) for compensation, as required by Section 45 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. By reason of such failure petitioner waived his right to present evidence concerning the claims and therefore cannot complain that he was not duly heard. Under the circumstances the hearing officer could make the award without the necessity of a formal hearing, treating the claim as uncontested and thus dispensing with the reception of evidence. There was an admission in the petition as well as in the brief of petitioner that the hearing officer did send to it by registered mail a copy of the claim with a request that the accompanying forms be submitted so that the matter could be properly passed upon. Petitioner could not then thereafter disclaim knowledge of the possible liability to which it could be subjected. The principle of social justice is in this sphere strengthened and vitalized. A realistic view is that expressed in Agustin v. Workmen's Compensation Commission: "As between a laborer, usually

CALALANG v. WILLIAMS, 70 PHIL 726, GR No. 47800, December 2, 1940 Court ruled that the petitioners secession from the original union and their formation of a new union did not divest the CIR of its jurisdiction over petitioners.When petitioners appeared for the first time before the Court of Industrial Relations as members of the Bisig Ng Canlubang (NLU), they appeared as workers of the Canlubang Sugar Estate. When they seceded from said union to form another, they remained to be workers of the Canlubang Sugar Estate. The splitting of the Canlubang Workers' Union into two unions cannot effect the jurisdiction of the court. Court ruled that the prohibition should be understood to cover only illegal picketing, that is, picketing through the use of illegal means. Peaceful picketing cannot be prohibited. It is part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the order of the Court of Industrial Relations prohibiting picketing must be understood to refer only to illegal picketing, that is, picketing through the use of illegal means. FELIX ABE, ET AL., vs. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION & CALTEX (PHIL.), INC., defendantsappellants. G.R. Nos. L-14785 and L-14923, February 27, 1961 Court ruled that RA 1052 is a regulatory measure, not a substantive law so that its enactment may properly be considered a valid exercise of the police power of the State . The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral and general welfare. By its very nature, Republic Act 1052 is a measure intended to provide protection to the workingmen, and, in a way, the employers as well, specifically in cases of employments with indefinite period or duration, by requiring the employer or employee, as the case may be, before terminating the employment, to give unto the other notice thereof 30 days in advance, non-observance of which by the employer, subjects him to payment (to the employee concerned) of a sum equivalent to the latter's compensation for one month. The purpose of the regulation is to give the other party opportunity to find replacement or substitute, in the case of the employer, and other place of employment or source of livelihood, in the case of the employee.

KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA PILIPINAS, petitioner-appellant, vs. GOTAMCO SAW MILL, respondent-appellee. The Supreme Court agreed with the ruling of CIR that section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 103 is constitutional. It does not offend against the constitutional inhibition prescribing involuntary servitude. As the Supreme Court stated, an employee entering into a contract of employment said law went into effect, voluntarily accepts, among other conditions, those prescribed in said section 19, among which is the "implied condition that when any dispute between the employer or landlord and the employee, tenant or laborer has been submitted to the Court of Industrial Relations for settlement or arbitration, pursuant to the provisions of this Act, and pending award or decision by it, the employee, tenant or laborer shall not strike or walk out of his employment when so joined by the court after hearing and when public interest so requires, and if he has already done so, that he shall forthwith return to it, upon order of the court, which shall be issued only after hearing when public interest so requires or when the dispute cannot, in its opinion, be promptly decided or settled ...". With this, the Supreme court AFFIRMED the orders and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations which were assailed by the petitioners. Cipriano P. Primicias vs. Valeriano E. Fugoso Dealing with the ordinance, specifically, Sec. 1119, said section provides for two constructions: (1) the Mayor of the City of Manila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and other public places of the City of Manila; (2) The right of the Mayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder. The court favored the second construction. First construction tantamount to authorizing the Mayor to prohibit the use of the streets. Under our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be validly granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national emergency. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one . The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the state.

Almoite vs. Pacific Architects CALALANG v. WILLIAMS, 70 PHIL 726, GR No. 47800, December 2, 1940 The regulation aims to promote safe transit and avoid obstructions on national roads in the interest and convenience of the public. Persons and property may be subject to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State. To this fundamental aims of the government, the rights of the individual are subordinated. Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principles of Salus Populi est Suprema Lex.(Justice Laurel) ANTONIO ONG, SR., vs HENRY PAREL The original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving said claims pertains to the labor arbiters alone (Article 217 of the Labor Code). "Original jurisdiction means jurisdiction to take cognizance of a cause at its inception, try it and pass judgment upon the law and facts. Exclusive jurisdiction precludes the Idea of co-existence and refers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others." The very essence of the right to due process of law is having one's "day in court." Day in court means the affording of an opportunity to be heard . The court ruled due to petitioners acts, he was not denied due process. Its not denial of right to be heard but denial of the opportunity to be heard that constitutes violation of due process. The petitioner was given not only the opportunity to be heard which he forfeited in the proceedings before the labor arbiter, but also the right to be heard, which he actually exercised through his various representations before the NLRC. The petitioner also failed to prove that his dismissal was illegal, while the respondent satisfactorily established the legal basis of his removal. ASIA BED FACTORY, vs. NATIONAL BED & KAPOK INDUSTRIES WORKERS' UNION, ET AL. Blue Sunday Law is not unconstitutional. There is here no attempt on the part of the employer to reduce the compensation of his employees. It is the law itself which in effect reduces that compensation by depriving the employees of work on Sundays, thus preventing them from earning the wages stipulated in the bargaining agreement. There is nothing to the contention that to apply the Blue Sunday Law to the present agreement would infringe the constitutional prohibition against the impairment of the obligations of contract . The Blue Sunday Law is intended for the health, well-being and happiness of the working class and is a legitimate exercise of the police power.