UNITED PEPSI-COLA SUPERVISORY UNION (UPSU) vs. HON. BIENVENIDO E.

LAGUESMA and PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. No. 122226 March 25, 1998
FACTS: Petitioner is a union of supervisory employees. On March 20, 1995 the union filed a
petition for certification election on behalf of the route managers at Pepsi-Cola Products
Philippines, Inc. However, its petition was denied by the med-arbiter and, on appeal, by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, on the ground that the route managers are managerial
employees and, therefore, ineligible for union membership pursuant to Art. 245 of the Labor
Code.
Petitioner brought this suit challenging the validity of the order of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, which was dismissed for lack of showing that respondent committed grave abuse
of discretion. Hence, this petition. Pressing for resolution its contention that the first sentence of
Art. 245 of the Labor Code, so far as it declares managerial employees to be ineligible to form,
assist or join unions, contravenes Art. III, Section 8 of the Constitution which provides: The
right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
ISSUE: Whether or not the route managers are managerial employees .
HELD: Yes the route managers are considered to be managerial employees. To qualify as
managerial employee, there must be a clear showing of the exercise of managerial attributes
under paragraph, Article 212 of the Labor Code as amended. Designations or titles of positions
are not controlling. At the very least, the principle of finality of administrative determination
compels respect for the finding of the Secretary of Labor that route managers are managerial
employees as defined by law in the absence of anything to show that such determination is
without substantial evidence to support it. The Court now finds that the job evaluation made by
the Secretary of Labor is indeed supported by substantial evidence. The nature of the job of route
managers is given in a four-page pamphlet, prepared by the company, called Route Manager
Position Description.

TAGAYTAY HIGLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED vs.

TAGAYTAY HIGKANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO
G.R. No. 142000 January 22, 2003
FACTS: On October 16, 1997, respondent Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), a legitimate labor
organization representing majority of the rank-and-file employees of petitioner Tagaytay
Highlands International Golf Club Inc. (THIGCI), filed a petition for certification election before
the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit.
THIGCI opposed the petition of THEU on the ground that out of 192 signatories to the petition,
only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. The others were supervisors, resigned,
terminated and absent without leave employees, while some others are employees from a
different corporation.
The Department of Labor and Employment Med-Arbiter issued an order to the hold the
certification election among the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. On appeal, Department of
Labor and Employment Undersecretary and the Court of Appeals affirmed Med Arbiters
decision and ordered that supervisory employees and non-employees could simply be removed
from the roster of rank-and-file membership.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that supervisory employees and
non-employees could simply be removed from THEUs roster of rank-and-file membership.
HELD: Yes, after a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be
subject to collateral attack. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation.
The grounds for cancellation of union registration are provided for under Article 239 of the
Labor Code. Among the grounds inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the
grounds for cancellation, unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation, false statement or
fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 Labor Code.
THEU, having been validly issued a certificate of registration, should be considered to have
already acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally.
Petition is denied. Let the records of the case be remanded to the office of origin, the MediationArbitration Unit, for the immediate conduct of a certification election subject to the usual preelection conference.

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., (CCBPI) vs. ILOCOS PROFESSIONAL

AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES UNION (IPTEU)
G.R. No. 193798 September 9, 2015
FACTS: On July 9, 2007 respondent IPTEU filed a petition for certification of election to
represent a bargaining unit consisting of 22 rank-and-file professional and technical employees
of CCBPI Ilocos Norte Plant. CCBPI prayed for the denial and dismissal of the petition, arguing
that said employees already belong to a bargaining unit (IMU) and that 22 are considered as
confidential employees, hence should be excluded from the bargaining unit. It also sought to
cancel and revoke the registration of IPTEU for failure to comply with the 20% membership
requirements based on all the supposed employees in the bargaining unit it seeks to operate.
The Mediator-Arbiter, the Secretary of Labor and Employment and the Court of Appeals held
that the 22 employees are not confidential employees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 22 employees are confidential employees and should be excluded
from the bargaining unit.
HELD: No, as proven by the certification of the IMU president as well as the CBAs executed
between IMU and CCBPI, the 22 employees sought to be represented by IPTEU are not IMU
members and are not included in the CBAs due to reclassification of their positions. If these
documents were false, the IMU should have manifested in vigorous opposition.
Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in
regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field
of labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who in the normal course of
their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal
objective sought to be accomplished by the Confidential Employee Rule. The rationale for their
separate category and disqualification to join any labor organization is similar to the inhibition
for managerial employees, because it allowed to be affiliated with a union, the latter might not be
assured of their loyalty in view of evident conflict of interests and the union can also become
company-denominated with the presence of managerial employees, in the union membership.
Having access to confidential information, confidential employees may also become the source
of undue advantage.

BENGUET ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., vs. HON. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

and BENECO EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION
G.R. No. 19025 December 29, 1989
FACTS: On June 21, 1985, Beneco Workers Labor Union Association of Democratic Labor
Organizations (BWLU-ADLO) filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive
bargaining representative of all the rank and file employees of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc
claiming that 198 out of 214 rank and file employees or 92.5% of theses employees have
supported the filing of the petition.
Thereafter, Benguet employees labor union (BELU) opposed the petition of BWLU-ADLO
contending it was certified as the sole bargaining representative of BENECO. On the other hand,
the BENECO filed a motion to dismiss claiming that it is a non-profit electric cooperative and
the employees sought to be represented by BWLU-ADLO are members and joint owners of the
cooperative.
ISSUE: Whether or not member consumers who are employees of BENECO could form, assist
or join a labor union.
HELD: No, The court held that, an owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. It is the
fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not involvement in the management thereof, which
disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative. Thus,
irrespective of the degree of their participation in the actual management of the cooperative, all
members thereof cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
In this case, the right to vote for a certified and exclusive bargaining agent is not available to
member-consumers who are not at the same time serving as rank and file employees of the
cooperative.
Under Article 256 of the Labor Code to have a valid certification election, at least a majority of
alleligible voters in the writ must have cast their votes. The labor union receiving the majority of
the valid votes shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all workers in the unit.

CENTRAL NEGROS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., (CENECO) vs. SECRETARY

OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and CENECO UNIION OF RATIONAL
EMPLOYEES (CURE)
G.R. No. 94045 September 13, 1991
FACTS: On August 15, 1987, CENECO entered into a collective bargaining agreement with
CURE, a labor union representing its rank-and-file employees, providing for a term of three
years retroactive to April 1, 1987 and extending up to March 31, 1990. On December 28, 1989,
CURE wrote CENECO proposing that negotiations be conducted for a new collective bargaining
agreement (CBA). CENECO denied CUREs request on the ground that, under applicable
decisions of the Supreme Court, employees who at the same time are members of an electric
cooperative are not entitled to form or join a union.
Prior to the submission of the proposal for CBA renegotiation, CURE members, in a general
assembly held on December 9, 1989, approved Resolution No. 35 whereby it was agreed that
tall union members shall withdraw, retract, or recall the union members membership from
Central Negros Electric Cooperative, Inc. in order to avail of the full benefits under the existing
Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by and between CENECO and CURE, and the
supposed benefits that our union may avail of under the renewed CBA. However, the withdrawal
from membership was denied by CENECO.
ISSUE: Whether or not the employees of CENECO who withdrew their membership from the
cooperative are entitled to form or join CURE for purposes of the negotiations for a CBA
proposed by the latter.
HELD: Yes, the right of the employees to self-organization is a compelling reason why their
withdrawal from the cooperative must be allowed.
As pointed out by CURE, the resignation of the member employees is an expression of their
preference for union membership over that of membership in the cooperative. The avowed policy
of the State to afford full protection to labor and to promote the primacy of free collective
bargaining mandates that the employees right to form and join unions for purposes of collective
bargaining be accorded the highest consideration.
Thus, member employees of a cooperative may withdraw as members of the cooperative in order
to join labor union. Membership in a cooperative is voluntary; inherent in it is the right not to
join.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION PHILIPPINE TRANSAPORT

AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEUPTGWO) vs. SAN MIGUEL
PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION PAMBANSANG DIWA NG
MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEUPDMP)
G.R. No. 171253 September 12, 2007
FACTS: PDMP issued a charter certificate to respondent on June 15, 1999. In compliance with
registration requirements, respondent submitted the requisite documents to the BLR for the
purpose of acquiring legal personality. Upon submission of such requirements, respondent was
issued certificate of creation of Local or Chapter by the BLR on July 6, 1999.
Respondent filed with the Med-arbiter of the Department of Labor and Employment, three
separate petitions for certification of election to represent SMPP, SMCSU, and SMBP. All three
petitions were dismissed, on the ground that the separate petitions fragmented a single bargaining
unit. On August 17, 1999, petitioner filed with the DOLE a petition seeking the cancellation of
respondents registration and its dropping from the rolls of legitimate organizations accusing
respondent of committing fraud and falsification, and non-compliance with registration
requirements in obtaining its certificate of registration. It alleged that respondent violated
Articles 239 (a), (b) and (c) and 234 (c) of the Labor Code. Moreover, petitioner claimed that
PDMP is not a legitimate labor organization, but a trade union center, hence, it cannot directly
create a local or chapter.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is a legitimate labor organization even if it failed to comply
with the 20% requirement as provided in Art. 234 of the Labor code.
HELD: No, PDMP is a trade union center therefore it cannot create locals or chapters. Since
under the pertinent status and applicable implementing rules, the power granted to labor
organizations to directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a federation or
national union, then a trade union center is without authority to charter directly. To prevent
circumvention of labor union requirements. As a legitimate labor organization is entitled to
specific rights under the labor code and involved in activities directly affecting public interest, it
is necessary that the law afford utmost protection to the parties affected.

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) SOCIAL SECURITY

SYSTEM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATOION-PAFLU, AL FAJARDO and ALL THE
OTHER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION-PAFLU vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR, DIRECTOR OF LABOR
RELATIONS and REGISTRAR OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
G.R. No. L-22228 February 27, 1969
FACTS: The Registrar of Labor Relations rendered a decision cancelling the SSSEAs
Registration Certificate due to its failure to submit reports of finances, names, postal addresses
and non-subversive affidavits of its officers despite postponements and extensions of the period
to appear and submit the aforementioned documents. Petitioners now assails the proceedings
conducted and the decision of the Registrar alleging that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875
violates their freedom of assembly and association; that respondents have acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating beyond the 30-day
period provided in Section 23(c) of Republic Act No. 875.
ISSUE: Whether or not the effect of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 875 unduly curtails the
freedom of assembly and association guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
HELD: No. There is no incompatibility between Republic Act No. 875 and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Upon the other hand, the cancellation of the SSSEAs registration
certificate would not entail dissolution of said association or its suspension. The existence of the
SSSEA would not be affected by said cancellation, although its juridical personality and its
statutory rights and privileges as distinguished from those conferred by the Constitution
would be suspended thereby.
The registration and permit of a legitimate labor organization shall be cancelled by the
Department of Labor, if the Department has reason to believe that the labor organization no
longer meets one or more of the requirements or fails to file with the Department Labor either its
financial report within the sixty days of the end of its fiscal year or the names of its new officers
along with their non-subversive affidavits above within sixty days of their election; however, the
Department of Labor shall not order the cancellation of the registration and permit without due
notice and hearing, and the affected labor organization shall have the same right of appeal to the
courts as previously provided.

COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC., vs. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and

EMPLOYMENT OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, COASTAL SUBIC BAY
TERMINAL, INC. SUPERVISORY UNION-APSOTEU, and COASTAL SUBIC BAY
TERMINAL, INC. RANK-AND-FILE UNION-ALU-TUCP
G.R. No. 157117 November 20, 2006
FACTS: CSBTI Rank-and-File Union (CSBTI-RFU) and CSBTI Supervisory Union (CSBTISU) filed separate petitions for certification election before Med-Arbiter de Jesus. The rank-andfile union insists that it is a legitimate labor organization having been issued a charter certificate
by the Associated Labor Union (ALU), and the supervisory union by the Associated
Professional, Supervisory, Office and Technical Employees Union (APSOTEU).
Private respondents also alleged that the establishment in which they sought to operate was
unorganized. CSBTI opposed both petitions for certification election alleging that the rank-andfile union and supervisory union were not legitimate labor organizations. Without ruling on the
legitimacy of the respondent unions, the Med-Arbiter dismissed both petitions. Med-Arbiter held
that the ALU and APSOTEU are one and the same federation having a common set of officers.
Thus, both unions were in effect affiliated with only one federation. On appeal to the SOLE:
Reversed the decision of the Med-Arbiter. The Secretary declared CSBTI-RFU and CSBTI-SU
as legitimate labor organizations having been chartered respectively by ALU and APSOTEU
after submitting all the requirements with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR). SOLE ordered
the holding of separate certification election. MFR of parties denied. Appeal to CA. Denied,
Hence, SC Petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not APSOTEUs certificate of registration is valid.
HELD: Yes. Under the Rules, a chartered local union acquires legal personality through the
charter certificate issued by a duly registered federation or national union, and reported to the
Regional Office in accordance with the rules implementing the Labor Code. A local union is a
separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the will of its members. Mere
affiliation only gives rise to a contract of agency. Local unions are considered principals while
the federation is deemed to be merely their agent. As such principals, the unions are entitled to
exercise the rights and privileges of a legitimate labor organization, including the right to seek
certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent in the appropriate employer unit.

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION (MANDAUE PACKAGING PRODUCTS PLANTS), vs.

MANDAUE PACKING PRODUCTS PLANTS-SAN PACKAGING PRODUCTS SAN
MIGUEL CORPORATION MONTHLIES RANK-AND-FILE UNION FFW (MPPPSMPP-SMAMRFU-FFW)
G.R. No. 152356. August 16, 2005
FACTS: Federation of Free Workers (FFW/ respondent) filed a petition for certification election
with the DOLE Regional Office No. VII. It sought to be certified and to represent the permanent
rank-andfile monthly paid employees of the petitioner. The following documents were attached
to the petition: (1) a Charter Certificate certifying that respondent as of that date was duly
certified as a local or chapter of FFW; (2) a copy of the constitution of respondent prepared by its
Secretary, Noel T. Bathan and attested by its President, Wilfred V. Sagun; (3) a list of
respondents officers and their respective addresses, again prepared by Bathan and attested by
Sagun; (4) a certification signifying that respondent had just been organized and no amount had
yet been collected from its members, signed by respondents treasurer Chita D. Rodriguez and
attested by Sagun; and (5) a list of all the rank-and-file monthly paid employees of the Mandaue
Packaging Products Plants and Mandaue Glass Plant prepared by Bathan and attested by Sagun.
-SMC (Petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certification election on the sole
ground that herein respondent is not listed or included in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations based on the certification issued by the Officer-In representative, then right to be
represented by a bargaining agent should not be denied to other members of the bargaining unit.
ISSUE: Whether or not the union is considered a legitimate labor organization.
HELD: Yes. Respondent submitted to the Bureau of Labor Relations the same documents
earlier attached to its petition for certification. The accompanying letter, signed by respondents
president Sagun, stated that such documents were submitted in compliance with the requirements
for the creation of a local/chapter pursuant to the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules; and it
was hoped that the submissions would facilitate the listing of respondent under the roster of
legitimate labor organizations. The Chief of Labor Relations Division of DOLE Regional Office
No. VII issued a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter No. ITD. I-ARFBT-058/98, certifying
that from 30 July 1998, respondent has acquired legal personality as a labor
organization/workers association, it having submitted all the required documents.

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED, vs.

TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO
G.R. No. 142000. January 22, 2003
FACTS: On October 16, 1997, the Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)Philippine
Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO), Local Chapter No. 776, a legitimate
labor organization said to represent majority of the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI, filed a
petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit, Regional Branch
No. IV. THIGCI, in its Comment filed on November 27, 1997, opposed THEUs petition for
certification election on the ground that the list of union members submitted by it was defective
and fatally flawed as it included the names and signatures of supervisors, resigned, terminated
and absent without leave (AWOL) employees, as well as employees of The Country Club, Inc., a
corporation distinct and separate from THIGCI; and that out of the 192 signatories to the
petition, only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI.
THIGCI also alleged that some of the signatures in the list of union members were secured
through fraudulent and deceitful means, and submitted copies of the handwritten denial and
withdrawal of some of its employees from participating in the petition
Replying to THIGCIs Comment, THEU asserted that it had complied with all the requirements
for valid affiliation and inclusion in the roster of legitimate labor organizations pursuant to
DOLE Department Order No. 9, series of 1997, on account of which it was duly granted a
Certification of Affiliation by DOLE on October 10, 1997; and that Section 5, Rule V of said
Department Order provides that the legitimacy of its registration cannot be subject to collateral
attack, and for as long as there is no final order of cancellation, it continues to enjoy the rights
accorded to a legitimate organization.
ISSUE: Whether or not the withdrawal of some union members from the certification election
will affect the result.
HELD: No. As for petitioner s allegation that some of the signatures in the petition for
certification election were obtained through fraud, false statement and misrepresentation, the
proper procedure is, as reflected above, for it to file a petition for cancellation of the certificate of
registration, and not to intervene in a petition for certification election. Regarding the alleged
withdrawal of union members from participating in the certification election, this Courts
following ruling is instructive.

THE HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA (OWNED AND OPERATED BY GRAND PLAZA

HOTELCORPORATION) vs. PINAG-ISANG GALING AT LAKAS NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SAHERITAGE MANILA (PIGLAS-HERITAGE)
G.R. No. 177024, October 30, 2009
FACTS: The Heritage Hotel Employees Union (HHE) was formed in 2000 by certain rank and
file employees of herein petitioner Heritage Hotel Manila, to which the Department
of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region issued a certificate of registration. HHE
filed a petition for certification election which petitioner opposed on the ground that HHE
misrepresented itself to be an independent union, when in fact it was a local chapter of the
National Union of Workers in Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN). It was
also alleged that such omitted disclosure was intentional because petitioners supervisors union
was already affiliated with it. Petitioner also filed a petition to cancel the unions registration
certificate. The Med-Arbiter nevertheless granted HHEs petition for certification election.
Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor but it was denied. The CA issued a writ of
injunction against the holding of HHEs certification election until the petition for cancellation of
its registration shall have been resolved with finality.
ISSUE: Whether or not the union made fatal misrepresentation in its application for
union registration.
HELD: No. Petitioner has no evidence of the alleged misrepresentation. The discrepancies
alone cannot be taken as indication that PIGLAS misrepresented the information contained in
these documents. Charges of fraud and misrepresentation should be clearly established by
evidence and surrounding circumstances because once it is proved, the labor union acquires none
of the rights accorded to registered organizations. The discrepancies can be explained. While it
appears that in the minutes of the December 10,2003 organizational meeting, only 90 employees
responded to the roll call at the beginning, it cannot be assumed that such number could not grow
to 128 as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance. The meeting lasted 12 hours from
11:00am to 11:00pm. There is no evidence that the meeting hall was locked up to exclude late
attendees. As to the fact that only 127 members ratified the unions constitution and by-laws
when 128 signed the attendance sheet, it cannot be assumed that all those who attended approved
of such. Any member had the right to hold out and refrain from ratifying those documents or to
simply ignore the process.

ELMER M. MENDOZA, vs. RURAL BANK OF LUCBAN

G.R. No. 155421. July 7, 2004
FACTS: On April 25, 1999, the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Lucban, Inc., issued
Board Resolution Nos. 99-52 and 99-53, that in line with the policy of the bank to familiarize
bank employees with the various phases of bank operations and further strengthen the existing
internal control system[,] all officers and employees are subject to reshuffle of assignments.
Moreover, this resolution does not preclude the transfer of assignment of bank officers and
employees from the branch office to the head office and vice-versa."
Petitioner filed a Complaint before Arbitration Branch No. IV of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). The Complaint was for illegal dismissal, underpayment, separation pay
and damages. Petitioner argues that he was compelled to file an action for constructive dismissal,
because he had been demoted from appraiser to clerk and not given any work to do, while his
table had been placed near the toilet and eventually removed. After the NLRC denied his Motion
for Reconsideration, petitioner brought before the CA a Petition for Certiorari assailing the
foregoing Resolution. The Court of appeals Find that no grave abuse of discretion could be
attributed to the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner was constructively dismissed from employment and that
the reshuffling pursuant to Board Res. Nos. 99-52 and 99-53 is a valid exercise of management
prerogative.
HELD: No. The petition has no merit. Constructive dismissal is defined as an involuntary
resignation resorted to when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay; or when a clear
discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. In
the case at bar, the reshuffling of its employees was done in good faith and cannot be made the
basis of a finding of constructive dismissal. In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest,
management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of
operation to another -- provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary, benefits,
and other privileges; and the action is not motivated by discrimination, made in bad faith, or
effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. This privilege is inherent
in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise effectively. The right of
employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of
depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them.

PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION, vs. ALICIA

LAPLANA, Hon. RICARDO ENCARNACION, and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 7664 July 23, 1991
FACTS: Alicia Laplana was the cashier of the Baguio City Branch Office of the Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (hereafter, simply PT & T). Sometime in March 1984, PT
& T's treasurer, Mrs. Alicia A. Arogo, directed Laplana to transfer to the company's branch office
at Laoag City. Laplana refused the reassignment and proposed instead that qualified clerks in the
Baguio Branch be trained for the purpose. On April 12, 1984, Mrs. Arogo reiterated her directive
for Laplana's transfer to the Laoag Branch, this time in the form of a written Memorandum
ordering her to turn over her accountabilities to Rose Caysido who will be in charge of
cashiering in Baguio. Apparently Laplana was not allowed to resume her work as Cashier of the
Baguio. Laplana received a telegram from Mrs. Arogo stating that if she is unable to report for
her new job assignment she will be held for abandonment of her job. Laplana in turn sent a telex
message to Mrs. Arogo asking to be retrenched instead. Termination of Laplana's employment on
account of retrenchment thereupon followed.
On October 9, 1984, Laplana filed with the Labor Arbiters' Office at Baguio City, thru the
CLAO, a complaint against PT & T averring that she was forced to be terminated and that there
was no ground at all for the retrenchment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Laplanas dismissal was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
HELD: Yes. The situation here presented is of an employer transferring an employee to another
office in the exercise of what it took to be sound business judgment and in accordance with predetermined and established office policy and practice, and of the latter having what was believed
to be legitimate reasons for declining that transfer, rooted in considerations of personal
convenience and difficulties for the family. Under these circumstances, the solution proposed by
the employee herself, of her voluntary termination of her employment and the delivery to her of
corresponding separation pay, would appear to be the most equitable. Certainly, the Court cannot
accept the proposition that when an employee opposes his employer's decision to transfer him to
another work place, there being no bad faith or underhanded motives on the part of either party,
it is the employee's wishes that should be made to prevail. In adopting that proposition by way of
resolving the controversy, the respondent NLRC gravely abused its discretion.

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and POTENCIANO L.

GALANIDA
G.R. No. 144412. November 18, 2003
FACTS: Private respondent Potenciano Galanida was hired by petitioner Allied Banking
wherein it is agreed that the bank reserves the right to transfer or assign respondent to other
departments or branches of the bank as the need arises and in the interest of maintaining smooth
and uninterrupted service to the public. Private respondent was promoted several times and was
transferred to several branches.Petitioner listed respondent as second in the order of priority of
assistant managers to be assigned outside of Cebu City having been stationed in Cebu for seven
years already. Private respondent manifested his refusal to be transferred to Bacolod. He then
filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for constructive dismissal. Subsequently, petitioner
bank informed private respondent that he was to report to the Tagbilaran City Branch but the
respondent refused.
On 5 October 1994, Galanida received a memo that Allied Bank had terminated his services
effective 1 September 1994. The reasons given for the dismissal were: (1) Galanidas continued
refusal to be transferred from the Jakosalem, Cebu City branch; and (2) his refusal to report for
work despite the denial of his application for additional vacation leave.
ISSUE: Whether or not Galanidas continued refusal to obey the transfer orders constituted
wilful disobedience or insubordination, which is a just cause for termination under the Labor
Code.
HELD: Yes. The employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons
and according to the requirement of its business, provided the transfer does not result in
demotion in rank or diminution of the employees salary, benefits and other privileges.[24] In
illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of showing that the transfer is not
unnecessary, inconvenient and prejudicial to the displaced employee. Dosch case is not
applicable to the present case. The transfer of an employee to an overseas post cannot be likened
to a transfer from one city to another within the country. Wilful refusal to be transferred within
the Philippines based on personal grounds was considered wilful disobedience.

GENUINO ICE COMPANY, INC. vs. ALFONSO S. MAGPANTAY

G.R. No. 147790 June 27, 2006
FACTS: Alfonso Magpantay was employed as a machine operator with Genuino Ice Company,
Inc. On November 18, 1996, respondent filed against petitioner a complaint for illegal dismissal
with prayer for moral and exemplary damages. In his Position Paper, respondent alleged that he
was dismissed from service effective immediately by virtue of a memorandum, after which he
was not allowed anymore to enter the company premises. Respondent bewailed that his
termination from employment was done without due process. Petitioner countered that he was
not illegally dismissed, since the dismissal was based on a valid ground, i.e., he led an illegal
strike at petitioners sister company, Genuino Agro Industrial Development Corporation,
resulting in big operation losses on the latters part. Petitioner also maintained that respondents
dismissal was made after he was accorded due process.- Petitioner initially claimed that
respondents acts were tantamount to serious misconduct or willful disobedience, gross and
habitual neglect of duties, and breach of trust.
ISSUE: Whether or not Magpantay was illegally dismissed.
HELD: YES on the ground of insubordination. The Court sustained the CAs finding that
respondents four-day absence does not amount to a habitual neglect of duty; however, the Court
found that respondent was validly dismissed on ground of willful disobedience or
insubordination. - FOR HABITUAL NEGLECT OF DUTY: Neglect of duty, to be a ground for
dismissal, must be both gross and habitual. Gross negligence connotes want of care in the
performance of ones duties. Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform ones duties for
a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. On the other hand, fraud and willful neglect
of duties imply bad faith on the part of the employee in failing to perform his job to the detriment
of the employer and the latters business. Thus, the single or isolated act of negligence does not
constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.

PILAR ESPINA et al. vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 164582 March 28, 2007
FACTS: M.Y. San Biscuits, Inc. was previously engaged in the business of manufacturing
biscuits and other related products. M.Y. San informed the DOLE and the Union of its closure or
cessation of business operations of as a result of the intended sale of the business and all the
assets of M.Y. San to Monde M.Y. San Corporation. In the interest of industrial peace, the union
and management have agreed, among others, on payment of separation package to the
employees. It was also agreed that M.Y. San shall provide Monde a list of all its present
employees who shall be given preference in employment by Monde. When Monde commenced
its operations, all the former employees of M.Y. San who were terminated upon its closure and
who applied and qualified for probationary employment, including petitioners herein, started
working for respondent Monde on a contractual basis for a period of six months. Subsequently,
petitioners were terminated on various dates. Thus, they filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal
and money claims. They alleged that the sale of respondent M.Y. San to Monde was merely a
ploy to circumvent the provisions of the Labor Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the employees were validly dismissed.
HELD: Yes. The determination to cease operations is a prerogative of management which the
State does not usually interfere with, as no business or undertaking must be required to continue
operating simply because it has to maintain its workers in employment, and such act would be
tantamount to a taking of property without due process of law. As long as the companys exercise
of the same is in good faith to advance its interest and not for the purpose of circumventing the
rights of employees under the law or a valid agreement, such exercise will be upheld. Clearly
then, the right to close an establishment or undertaking may be justified on grounds other than
business losses but it cannot be an unbridled prerogative to suit the whims of the employer. The
ultimate test of the validity of closure or cessation of establishment or undertaking is that it must
be bona fide in character. The burden falls upon the employer. M.Y. San in good faith complied
with the requirements for closure; sold and conveyed all its assets to Monde for valuable
consideration; and there were no previous labor problems.

JOAQUIN T. SERVIDAD, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,

INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC. INNODATA CORPORATION, TODD SOLOMON
G.R. No. 128682. March 18, 1999
FACTS: Servidad was employed on 9 May 1994 by respondent INNODATA as Data Control
Clerk, under a contract of employment. Section 2 of such contract states: This Contract shall be
effective for a period of one (1) year commencing on 10 May1994 until 10 May 1995 unless
sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof.
Petitioner was a contractual employee for six months or from the period of May 10, 1994 to
November 10, 1994 during which, the employer can terminate with due notice. The contract also
states that should the employee continue his employment beyond the 6-month period, he shall
become a regular employee upon demonstration of sufficient skill. On November 9, 1995 or one
day before his contractual terms ends, he was made to sign a three-month probationary
employment and later, an extended three-month employment good until 9 May 1995.Petitioner
was terminated on May 9, 1995 and filed an illegal dismissal complaint before the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contract entered into between the petitioner and respondent is valid
and enforceable.
HELD: No. As to the private respondent statement that the one-year period stipulated in subject
contract was to enable petitioner to acquire the skill necessary for the job. In effect, what
respondent employer theorized upon is that the one-year term of employment is probationary. If
the nature of the job did actually necessitate at least one year for the employee to acquire the
requisite training and experience, the same could not be a valid probationary employment as it
falls short of the requirement of Article 281[10] of the Labor Code. It was not brought to light
that the petitioner was duly informed at the start of his employment, of the reasonable standards
under which he could qualify as a regular employee.

MARITES BERNARDO et al. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and

FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
G.R. No. 122917 July 12, 1999
FACTS: Between 1988 and 1993, Far East Bank and Trust Co. hired 56 deaf-mutes as Money
Sorters and Counters through a uniformly worded agreement called Employment Contract for
Handicapped Workers. This contract was renewed every six months, as per its stipulations. The
contract also stated that the employment of the deaf-mutes was temporary, and they were a
special type of workers apart from the regular employees; and that the provisions of Book Six of
the Labor Code, particularly on regulation of employment and separation pay, are not applicable
tothem.43 deaf-mutes who were hired as Money Sorters and Counters by FEBTC filed a case
against the said company, arguing that they should be deemed as regular workers. The labor
arbiter ruled in favor of FEBTC, stating that they could not be deemed regular employees, but
only as special employees falling under Article 80 of the Labor Code. The NLRC affirmed the
labor arbiter and stated additionally that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons was not
applicable considering the prevailing circumstances/milieu of the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the deaf-mutes have become regular employees.
HELD: YES. At the outset, let it be known that the Court appreciates the nobility of FEBTCs
effort to provide employment to physically impaired individuals and to make them more
productive members of society. However, it cannot be allowed to elude the legal consequences of
that effort, simply because it now deems their employment irrelevant. The facts, viewed in light
of the Labor Code andthe Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, indubitably show that the
petitioners, except sixteen of them, should be deemed regular employees. As such, they have
acquired legal rights that the Court is duty-bound to protect and uphold, not as a matter of
compassion but as a consequence of law and justice. The stipulations in their employment
contracts indubitably conform with Article 80 of the Labor Code, but succeeding events and the
enactment of RA 7277 (the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons) justify the application of Article
280 of the Labor Code.
In rendering this decision, the Court emphasizes not only the constitutional bias in favor of the
working class, but also the concern of the State for the plight of the disabled. The noble
objectives of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons are not based merely on charity or
accommodation, but on justice and the equal treatment of qualified persons, disabled or not. In
the present case, the handicap of the petitioners is not a hindrance to their work. The eloquent
proof of this statement is the repeated renewal of their employment contracts. Why then should
they be dismissed, simply because they are physically impaired? The Court believes that, after
showing their fitness for the work assigned to them, they should be treated and granted the same
rights like any other regular employees.

EFREN P. PAGUIO, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,

METROMEDIA TIMES CORPORATION, ROBINA Y. GOKONGWEI, LIBERATO
GOMEZ, JR., YOLANDA E. ARAGON, FREDERICK D. GO and ALDA IGLESIA
G.R. No. 147816

May 9, 2003

FACTS: On 22 June, 1992, respondent Metro Media Times Corporation entered into an
agreement with petitioner, Efren P. Paguio, appointing the latter to be an account executive of the
firm. The petitioner was to solicit advertisements for the Manila Times, a newspaper published
by the respondent company. On 15 August, 1992, barely two months after the renewal of his
contract, petitioner received a notice of termination from the respondent firm. There was no
given definite cause for the petitioners termination. Aggrieved, Paguio filed a case before the
labor arbiter, asking that his dismissal be declared unlawful and prayed that respondent company
officials be held accountable for acts of unfair labor practices, P500, 000.00 moral damages, and
for P20, 000.0 exemplary damages. The Labor arbiter found for petitioner and declared his
dismissal illegal. The arbiter ordered respondent company and its officers to reinstate Paguio to
his former position and to pay him his commissions and other remunerations. He likewise
adjudged that the general manager of the respondent corporation be held liable to Paguio for
moral damages in the amount of P20,000.0.On appeal, NLRC reversed the ruling of the labor
arbiter and declared the contractual relationship between the parties as a fixed-term employment.
Petitioner Paguio appealed the ruling of the NLRC before the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners dismissal is legal.
HELD: No. As defined in Article 280 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is one who is
engaged to perform activities which are necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer, as against those which are undertaken for a specific project. Even in these latter
cases, where such person has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of the nature of the
activity performed or of whether it is continuous or intermittent, the employment is considered
regular as long as the activity exists, it not being indispensable that he be first issued a regular
appointment or be formally declared as such before acquiring a regular status. The law in
defining their contractual relationship does not necessarily or exclusively upon the terms of their
written or oral contract, but also on the basis of the nature of the work petitioner has been called
upon to perform. A lawful dismissal must meet both substantive and procedural requirements; in
fine, the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with the rudimentary
due process of notice and hearing. It is not shown that respondent company has fully bothered
itself with either of these requirements in terminating the services of petitioner. The notice of
termination recites no valid or just cause for the dismissal of petitioner nor does it appear that he
has been given an opportunity to be heard in his defense.

AMOR CONTI and LEOPOLDO CRUZ vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION (Third Division), CORFARM HOLDINGS CORPORATION, CARLITO
J. RABANG and CIPRIANO Q. BARAYANG
G.R. No. 119253 April 10, 1997
FACTS: Petitioner Amor Conti was employed by respondent Corfarm as a cashier. Petitioner
Leopoldo Cruz was employed by the same respondent corporation as a warehouseman on. Both
Amor Conti and Leopoldo Cruz were subsequently promoted to the positions of Head of
Commissary and Store Supervisor, respectively. In their respective employment contracts with
Corfarm, it was stipulated that their employment shall be coterminous with the effectivity of the
contract executed by and between Corfarm and MERALCO for the management of the latter's
commissary.
On 31 December 1992, said management contract between Corfarm and MERALCO expired.
However, Corfarm continued to operate the MERALCO commissary despite the non-renewal of
said contract. Petitioners then received a memorandum from private respondents terminating
their services effective on said date, allegedly for two reasons: 1) the expiration of their
employment contracts, these being coterminous with the management contract between Corfarm
and MERALCO, and; 2) the on-going evaluation of their past performances, and investigation of
the internal auditor of Corfarm of certain anomalous transactions involving them.