You are on page 1of 2

1)

Book 5, Title 1, Chapter 3 Art 223: While Article 223 of the Labor Code and Section 3(a), Rule VI of the then New Rules of Procedure of the
47

NLRC require the party intending to appeal from the LAs ruling to furnish the other party a copy of his memorandum of appeal, the Court has held
48

that the mere failure to serve the same upon the opposing party does not bar the NLRC from giving due course to an appeal. Such failure is only
49

treatedas a formal lapse, an excusable neglect, and, hence, not a jurisdictional defect warranting the dismissal of an appeal. Instead, the NLRC
50

should require the appellant to provide the opposing party copies of the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal.

Fernandez vs. Botica Claudio, GR 205870, Aug. 13, 2014)


2)

(Lei Sheryll

Book 6 Title 1 Art 282: The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years from the time the cause of action accrued. This fouryear prescriptive period, not the three-year period for filing money claims under Article 291 of the Labor Code, applies to claims for backwages and
damages due to illegal dismissal. (GeorgeArria

3)

vs Pilipino Star Ngayon, GR 175689, Aug. 13, 2014)

Book 6, Title 2, Art 287: 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
32

employees 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 onehalf (1/2) 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 (1/2) 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."

Filipinas Lavandera, GR 177845, Aug. 20, 2014)


4)

(Grace Christian H.S. vs.

Book 3 Title 2 Chapter 3 Art 106 : Case law states that the principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as
"project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees," is whether or not the "project employees" were assigned to carry out a "specific
project or undertaking," the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project. The project could
either be (1) a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate,
and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the
corporation.

5)

(Crispina Lopez vs. Irvine Construction Corp., GR 207253, Aug. 20, 2014) art. 280

Book 6 Title 1 Art 282: Article 282 (c) of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence.
The first requisite is that the employee concerned must be one holding a position of trust and confidence, thus, one who is either: (1) a managerial
employee; or (2) a fiduciary rank-and-file employee, who, in the normal exercise of his or her functions, regularly handles significant amounts of
money or property of the employer. The second requisite is that the loss of confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on
clearly established facts.

6)

(Wesleyan University-Philippines Vs. Nowella Reyes G.R. No. 208321. July 30, 2014)

Book 5 Title 2 Chapter 2 Art 217: Article 217(c) of the Labor Code provides that the Labor Arbiter shall refer to the grievance machinery and voluntary
arbitration as provided in the CBA those cases that involve the interpretation of said agreements. Article 261 of the Labor Code further provides that all
unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA, including violations of said agreement, are under the original and

(University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union Vs.


University of Santo Tomas G.R. No. 203957. July 30, 2014)
exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators.

7)

Book 2 Title 1 Chapter 1 Art 13: Not every form of control is indicative of employer-employee relationship. A person who performs work for another
1wphi1

and is subjected to its rules, regulations, and code of ethics does not necessarily become an employee. As long as the level of control does not
34

interfere with the means and methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks, Rules and regulations that merely serve as guidelines towards the
achievement of a mutually desired result without dictating the means and methods of accomplishing it do not establish employer-employee
relationship. (Royale
8)

Homes Marketing Corporation Vs. Fidel P. Alcantara, G.R. No. 195190. July 28, 2014)

Book 4 Title 1Chapter 6 Art 192 Prexistence of an illness does not irrevocably bar compensability because disability laws still grant the same
provided the seafarers working conditions bear causal connection with his illness. These rules, however, cannot be asserted perfunctorily by the
claimant as it is incumbent upon him to prove, by substantial evidence, as to how and why the nature of his work and working conditions contributed to
38

and/or aggravated his illness.Status

Maritime Corporation, et al. Vs. Spouses Margarito B. Delalamon and

Priscila A. Delalamon G.R. No. 198097. July 30, 2014

9)

Book 6 Title 1 Art 282 It is a fundamental rule that an employee can be discharged from employment only for a valid cause. Under Article 282 of the
Labor Code, as a valid ground for dismissal under said provision, neglect of duty must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence entails want of
care in the performance of ones duties, while habitual neglect imparts repeated failure to perform such duties for a period of time, depending on the

(FLP Enterprises Inc.-Francesco Shoes/Emilio Francisco B. Pajaro Vs. Ma. Joeralyn D.


Dela Cruz and Vilma Malunes G.R. No. 198093. July 28, 2014)
circumstances.

10)

Book 4, Title 1 Chapter 6 Art 192 : Section 32-A of the POEA Standard Employment Contract considers the possibility of compensation for the death of
a seafarer occurring after the termination of the employment contract on account of a work-related illness. But for death to be compensable, under this
provision, the claimant must fulfill all the requisites for compensability. Colon cancer is not one of those types of cancer that are compensable under
Section 32 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. (Joraina

Dragon Talosig Vs. United Philippine Lines, Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 198388. July 28, 2014)


11)

Book 3 Title 1 Chapter 3 Art 96: This last paragraph of Article 96 of the Labor Code presumes the practice of collecting service charges and the employers termination of
this practice. When this happens, Article 96 requires the employer to incorporate the amount that the employees had been receiving as share of the collected service
charges into their wages. In cases where no service charges had previously been collected (as where the employer never had any policy providing for collection of service
charges or had never imposed the collection of service charges on certain specified transactions), Article 96 will not operate.

(National

Union of Workers

in Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries [NUWRAIN-APL-IUF], Philippine Plaza Chapter Vs. Philippine
Plaza Holdings, Inc. G.R. No. 177524. July 23, 2014)
12)

Book 5, Title 4, Chapter 1 Art 238 Under the long established rule, too, the filing of the petition for the cancellation of NUWHRAIN-HHMSCs registration should not bar the
conduct of the certification election. In that respect, only a final order for the cancellation of the registration would have prevented NUWHRAIN-HHMSC from continuing to
enjoy all the rights conferred on it as a legitimate labor union, including the right to the petition for the certification election. This rule is now enshrined in Article 238-A of

(Heritage Hotel Manila, acting through its owner, Grand Plaza Hotel
Corp. Vs. Secretary of Labor & Employment, et al. G.R. No. 172132. July 23, 2014)
the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9481.

13)

Book 6, Title 1, Art 282, It is the employers prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its
business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same be complied with. At the same time,
it is one of the fundamental duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and willful or
intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies rescission of the contract of service and the peremptory dismissal of the employee. ( St.

Luke's Medical Center, Incorporated Vs. Daniel Quebral, et al. G.R. No. 193324. July 23, 2014)
14)

Book 4, Title 1, Chapter 7 Art 194 In order for the beneficiary of an employee to be entitled to death benefits under the SSS, the cause of death of the
employee must be a sickness listed as an occupational disease by ECC; or any other illness caused by employment, subject to proof that the risk of
contracting the same is increased by the working conditions. It is undisputed that SLE is not listed as an occupational disease under Annex "A" of the
Rules on Employees Compensation. Thus, petitioner has to prove by substantial evidence the causal relationship between her husbands illness and
his working conditions. (Estrella

189574. July 18, 2014)

D. S. Banez Vs. Social Security System and De la Salle University, G.R. No.

You might also like