Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MEGASCOPE
GENERAL
SERVICES,
petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION,
LABOR
ARBITER ARIEL C. SANTOS, ERLINDA
ARAOJO, LILING C. ARAGO, LUZ P.
BALENA,
ADELA
R.
BAUTISTA,
GEMENA D. CANTA, VICTORINA S.
COLLENA, ELISA H. DE GUZMAN,
YOLANDA J. GOB, JULING R. GOB,
FRANCISCO N. GUMARO, LOURDES P.
MANALO, ROSALINA O. RAMIREZ,
RODRIGO O. RAMIREZ, VENTURA
RAMOS, REYNALDO MAGTANONG,
AURELIA M. SAN JOSE, NESTOR
SERIL, LUIS TUTOL and GENER J. DEL
ROSARIO, respondents.
ROMERO, J.:
Facts: Petitioner
corporation
manufactures
money-counting machines for export exclusively
for Glory Japan Ltd. (Glory Japan). Petitioner hired
respondents as members of Parts Inspection
Section (PIS) on July 6, 1998 but employment
contracts indicated respondents as Production
Operators for a period of one month and renewed
on a monthly basis. On April 26, 1999, Glory
Japan cancelled its orders such that contractual
employees in the PIS were no longer needed.
Petitioner extended respondents employment
due to their pleas and continued to work until
May 25, 1999 when the security guard informed
them that their employment had been
terminated. Respondents filed complaints for
illegal dismissal.
Issue: Whether or not respondents were regular
employees.
Held: YES. Contrary to petitioners claim that
respondents were project employees whose
employment
was
coterminous
with
the
transaction with Glory Japan, the same was not
indicated in the contracts. As correctly observed
by the Court of Appeals, nothing therein
suggested or even hinted that their employment
was dependent on the continuous patronage of
Glory Japan. The principal test for determining
whether particular employees are properly
characterized as project employees, as
distinguished from regular employees, is
Wellington
Investment
&
Manufacturing
Corporation
vs.
Trajano [G.R. No. 114698 July 3,
1995]
Facts: Petitioner Norma Mabeza and her coemployees at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio City
were asked by the hotels management to sign
an instrument attesting to the latters compliance
with minimum wage and other labor standard
provision. The instrument provides that they
have no complaints against the management of
the Hotel Supreme as they are paid accordingly
and that they are treated well. The petitioner
signed the affidavit but refused to go to the Citys
Prosecutors Office to confirm the veracity and
contents of the affidavit as instructed by
management. That same day, as she refused to
illegally dismissed.
Held: The absence of a valid cause for
termination in this case is apparent. For an
employees dismissal to be valid, 1) the dismissal
must be for a valid cause and 2) the employee
must be afforded due process. Petitioners allege
that private respondent was dismissed because
of his incompetence, enumerating incidents in
proof thereof. However, this is contradicted by
private respondents seamans book which states
that his discharge was due to an emergency
leave. Moreover, his alleged incompetence is
belied by the remarks made by petitioners in the
same book that private respondents services
were highly recommended and that his conduct
and ability were rated very good . Petitioners
allegation that such remark and ratings were
given
to
private
respondent
as
an
accommodation for future employment fails to
persuade. The Court cannot consent to such an
accommodation, even if the allegation were true,
as it is a blatant misrepresentation. It cannot
exculpate
petitioners
based
on
such
misrepresentation. When petitioners issued the
accommodation, they must have known its
possible repercussions.
Due process, the second element for a valid
dismissal, requires notice and hearing. Before the
employee can be dismissed under Art. 282, the
Code requires the service of a written notice
containing a statement of the cause/s of
termination and giving said employee ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. A
Held:
respondent
with
the
Philippine
Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) for acts
unbecoming a marine officer and for, character
assassination.
On 4 September 1985, the POEA found private
respondent liable for inciting another officer or
seaman to insubordination and challenging a
superior officer to a fist fight and imposed six (6)
months suspension for each offense or a total of
twelve (12) months suspension, with a warning
that commission of the same or similar offense in
the future would be met with a stiffer disciplinary
sanction. The POEA decision passed over sub
silentio the counterclaim of private respondent.
In its answer filed on 11 December 1985,
petitioner Pascor made four principal arguments:
that the copy of the Dubai decision relied upon
by private respondent could not be considered as
evidence,
not
having
been
properly
authenticated; that Pascor was not a party to the
Dubai court proceedings; that the POEA had no
jurisdiction over cases for the enforcement of
foreign judgments; and that the claim had
already been resolved in POEA, having been
there dismissed as a counterclaim. In a decision
dated 14 April 1986, the POEA held petitioner
Pascor liable to pay private respondent Rances
the amount of US$ 1,500.00 "at the prevailing
rate of exchange at the time of payment." This
decision was served on petitioner's counsel on 18
April 1986, which counsel filed a 'Memorandum
on Appeal and/or Motion for Reconsideration" on
29 April 1986.
Issue: Whether
the
accused-appellants
committed illegal recruitment in large scale.
Held: Large-scale illegal recruitment has the
following
essential
elements:The
accused
undertook recruitment activity defined under
Article 13 or any prohibited practice under Art. 34
of the Labor Code, he did not have the license or
the authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers and he
committed the same against three or more
persons, individually or as a group.
These essential elements are present in this
case. Accused-appellants recruited at least four
persons, giving them the impression that they
had the capability to send them to Taiwan for
employment. They collected various amounts
allegedly for recruitment and placement fees
without license or authority to do so. It is settled
that the fact that an accused in an illegal
recruitment case did not issue the receipts for
amounts received from the complainants has no
bearing on his culpability so long as complainants
show through their respective testimonies and
affidavits that the accused was involved in the
prohibited recruitment. Thus, the accusedappellants were guilty of illegal recruitment in
large scale.
No.
Facts: Leonardo
dela
Rosa
sought
his
reinstatement. with full backwages, as well as the
recovery of his overtime compensation, swing
shift and graveyard shift differentials. Petitioner
alleged that he was employed by respondents as,
painter, houseboy and cashier. He further averred
that from December, 1965 to August, 1966,
inclusive, he rendered overtime services daily
and that this entire period was divided into swing
and graveyard shifts to which he was assigned,
but he was not paid both overtime and night shift
premiums despite his repeated demands from
respondents.
The petitioner, a foreign corporation domiciled
outside the Philippines was ordered by CIR then
to pay the unpaid overtime and premium pay.
However, on certiorari, the petitioner contended
that because it was domiciled outside and not
doing business in Philippines, it could not be sued
in the country.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner has been doing
business in the Philippines so that the service of
summons upon its agent in the Philippines vested
the Court of First Instance of Manila with
jurisdiction.
Held: Yes, the object of Sections 68 and 69 of the
Corporation Law was not to prevent the foreign
corporation from performing single acts, but to
prevent it from acquiring a domicile for the
purpose of business without taking the steps
National
Shipyards
And
Steel
Corporation vs. Court of Industrial
Relations
Facts: Petition for review by certiorari of the
orders of the Court of Industrial relations
requiring it to pay its bargeman, Malondras, an
overtime service of 16 hours a day for a period
from January 1, 1954 - December 31, 1956, and
from January 1, 1957 to April 30, 1957, inclusive.
NASSOO, engaged in the business of ship
building and repair that needs a service of a
bargeman. Bargeman are required to stay in their
barges for on call duty, so they are given living
quarters and subsistence allowance of P1.50 per
day during the time they are on board. However,
Malondras filed with the Industrial Court a
complaint for the payment of overtime
compensation because of his exclusion from the
second report of the examiner. The examiner
then submitted an amended report giving
in the manufacture
and other rubber
is an association of
of petitioner at its
all company factory
members of private
Cebu Seaman's
Ferrer-Calleja
Association
vs.
Labor Code.
On the basis of the evidence presented by the
parties, SAPI, the legitimate labor union,
registered with its office, is not the same
association as CSAI, the corporation, insofar as
their rights under the Labor Code are concerned.
Hence, SAPI and not the CSAI is entitled to the
release and custody of union fees with Aboitiz
Shipping and other shipping companies with
whom it had an existing CBA.
The election of the so-called set of officers
headed by Manuel Gabayoyo was conducted
under the supervision of the SEC. That being the
case, the aforementioned set of officers is of the
CSAI and not of SAPI. It follows, then, that any
proceedings, and actions taken by said set of
officers can not, in any manner, affect the union
and its members.
Radio
Communication
of
the
Philippines Inc. vs. Secretary of
Labor, [G.R. No. 77959 January 9,
1989]
Facts: On May 4, 1981, petitioner, a domestic
corporation engaged in the telecommunications
business, filed with the National Wages Council
an application for exemption from the coverage
of Wage Order No. 1. The application was
opposed
by
respondent
United
RCPI
Communications Labor Association (URCPICLAFUR), a labor organization affiliated with the
Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR).
Secretary of Labor and Employment issued an
order on August 18, 1986 modifying the order
appealed from by holding petitioner solely liable
to respondent union for 10% of the awarded
amounts as attorney's fees.
Issue: Whether or not public respondents acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in holding the petitioner solely
Facts:
Petitioners
are
merchandisers
of
respondent company. They withdraw stocks from
the warehouse , fix the prices, price-tagging,
displaying the products and inventory. They were
paid by the company through an agent to avoid
Sugbanon Rural
Laguesma [2000]
Bank
Inc.,
vs.
Noriel
Facts:
Elisco-Elirol
Labor
Union
(NAFLU)
negotiated and executed a CBA with Elizalde
Steel Consolidated Inc. However, Elisco-Elirol
then was not yet a registered union. In order to
be able to execute the CBA, they had the union
registered, which was granted. They likewise
moved to disaffiliate themselves with NAFLU.
Elizalde, however, refused to recognized them as
the SEBA and it dismissed the officers of the
union because of the union security clause in the
CBA. Elisco-Elirol filed a complaint for unfair labor
practice with the BLR. The BLR dismissed.
Issue: Whether or not Elisco-Elirol is the SEBA
Held: YES. The error of BLR is not perceiving that
the employees and members of the local union
did not form a new union but merely registered
the local union as was their right. Petitioner
Elisco-Elirol Labor Union-NAFLU, consisting of
employees and members of the local union was
the principal party to the agreement. NAFLU as
the mother union" in participating in the
execution of the bargaining agreement with
respondent company acted merely as agent of
the local union, which remained the basic unit of
the association existing principally and freely to
serve the common interest of all its members,
including the freedom to disaffiliate when the
circumstances so warranted as in the present
case.
"(T)he locals are separate and distinct units
primarily designed to secure and maintain an
equality of bargaining power between the
Linton Commercial
Hellera
Co.
Inc.
vs