LABOR LAW

It has long been the established rule, moreover, that jurisdiction over a
subject matter is conferred by law,1 and the question of lack of jurisdiction may be
raised at anytime even on appeal.2 In the recent case of La Naval Drug Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103200, 31 August 1994), this Court said:
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit is yet
another matter. Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed (Section 2,
Rule 9, Rules of Court). This defense may be interposed at any time,
during appeal (Roxas vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil 957) or even after final
judgment (Cruzcosa vs. Judge Concepcion, et. al. 101 Phil. 146).
Such is understandable, as this kind of jurisdiction is conferred by
law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves
determine or conveniently set aside. In People vs. Casiano (111 Phil.
73, 93-94), this Court on the issue of estoppel, held:
The operation of the principle of estoppel on
the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends upon
whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or
not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and
decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the
parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such
jurisdiction, for the same must exist as a matter of
law, and may not be conferred by consent of the
parties or by estoppel (5 C.J.S. 861-863). However, if
the lower court had jurisdiction and the case was
heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for
instance, as the court had no jurisdiction, the party
who induced it to adopt such theory will not be
permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent
positionthat the lower court had jurisdiction. Here,
the principle of estoppel applies. The rule that
jurisdiction is conferred by law, and does not depend
upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon.
R. Luzon vs. NLRC and Philippine Airline, Inc. G. R. No. 107660,
January 2, 1995

Salaries, Wages, Separation Pays, Backwages, Etc.

1

Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 536, 539, citing Tijam vs. Sibongbanoy, 23 SCRA
29; Atlas Developer & Steel Industries, Inc., vs. Sarmiento Enterprises, 184 SCRA 153.
2
Zamora vs. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 279.

- When the reinstatement would no longer be beneficial to either party,

award back salaries and severance pay appears to be in order. (Marcelo vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 240 SCRA 782)
- For being without any clear legal basis, the award of separation pay must
be set aside. (Zanotte Shoes vs. National Labor Relation Commission, 241 SCRA
261)
- The salesmens commissions, comprising a pre-determined percent of the
selling price of the goods sold by each salesman, were properly included the term
basic salary: for purposes of computing their 13 th month pay. (Philippine
Duplicators, Inc. vs. National Labor Relation Commission, 241 SCRA 380)
- A bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver which the recipient
has no right to demand as a matter of right. (Philippine Duplicators, Inc. vs.
National Labor Relation Commission, 241 SCRA 380)
- Productivity bonus should not be deemed to fall within the basis salary
of employees to compute their 13th month pay. (Philippine Duplicators, Inc. vs.
National Labor Relation Commission, 241 SCRA 380)
- Additional payments made to employees, to the extent they partake of the
nature of profit-sharing payments, are properly excluded from the ambit of the
term basic salary for purposes of computing the 13 th month pay due to
employees. (Philippine Duplicators, Inc. vs. National Labor Relation Commission,
241 SCRA 380)
- Prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6715, the back salaries of the
dismissed employees should limited to three (3) years, without deduction or
qualification. (Isalama Machine Works Corporatiion vs. National Labor Relation
Commission, 242 SCRA 115)
- The 13th month pay of an individual is (not less than) one-twelfth (1/12) of
the total basic salary earned by an employee within a calendar year. (International
School of Speech vs. National Labor Relation Commission, 242 SCRA 382)
- Considering that in 1989 private respondent rendered service for only 6
months, her 13th month pay should be one-twelfth (1/12) of the total compensation
she received for that year, that is, P7,319.00. Consequently her 13th month pay for
the year 1989 should be P610.00. (International School of Speech vs. National
Labor Relation Commission, 242 SCRA 382)
- Backwages represent compensation that should have been earned by the
employee but were lost because of the unjust or illegal dismissal. (General Textile,
Inc. vs. National Labor Relation Commission, 243 SCRA 232)
- Wages shall be paid only by means of legal tender. (Congson vs. NLRC,
243 SCRA 260)

- As permissible exception to the general rule, separation pay may be

awarded to the employee in the lieu of reinstatement, by reason of strained
relationship between the employer and employee. (Congson Textile, Inc. vs.
NLRC, 243 SCRA 232)
- Separation pay of one-half (1/2) month for each year of service is
equitable, even if termination of employment is justified. (Worldwide Papermills,
Inc. vs. NLRC, 244 SCRA 125)
- Amount awarded in dismissal without due process was intended to serve as
a penalty o employer who violated employees right as well as to serve as an
example for other employers inclined to violate their employees rights.
(Worldwide Papermills, Inc. vs. NLRC, 244 SCRA 125)
-Republic Act No. 6715 which amended Article 279 of the Labor Code has
no retroactive effect and does not apply to cases of legal dismissal taking place
before its effectivity on March 21, 1989, (Balladares, Jr. vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA
213)
- With the grant of separation pay in favor of petitioner, it is incongruous for
petitioner to insist on any kind of reinstatement. (Bombase vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA
561)
- Every worker should be paid his regular daily wage during regular days,
except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10)
workers. (Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corp. vs. Trajano, 245 SCRA
561)
- An employee is entitled to reinstatement and to his full backwages when he
is unjustly dismissed. (Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. vs. NLRC, 245
SCRA 627)
- Well-settled is it that separation pay shall be allowed only in those
instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious
misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Gold City Integrated Port
Service, Inc. vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 627)
-Backwages and separation pay are distinct reliefs given to alleviate the
economic damage suffered by an illegally dismissed employee. (Lopez, Jr. vs.
NLRC, 245 SCRA 644)
-In ascertaining the total amount of backwages payable to them, we go back
to the rule prior to the Mercury Drug rule, that the total amount derived from
employment elsewhere by the employee from the date dismissal up to the date
reinstatement, if any, should be deducted therefrom. (Caltex Refinery Employees
Association, vs. NLRC, 246 SCRA 271)

- View that after passage of Republic Act No 6715, reinstatement of an

employee entitles him to full backwages (from date of actual dismissal to the date
of actual reinstatement) without deducting therefrom salary income received
elsewhere during said period. (Caltex Refinery Employees Association vs. NLRC,
246 SCRA 271)
- Award of backwages was predicated on the ground that he was illegally
dismissed. (Jackson Building Condominium Corp. vs. NLRC, 246 SCRA 329)
- Separation pay can be awarded in lieu of reinstatement only if
reinstatement can no longer be made, as when the position previously held by the
employee no longer exists or when there is strained relations as a result of loss of
trust and confidence. (Vallacar Transit, Inc. vs. NLRC, 246 SCRA 460)
- The Supreme Court has allowed grants of separation pay to stand as a
measure of social justice where the employee is validly on his moral character.
(CJC Trading, Inc. vs. NLRC, 246 SCRA 724)
- The 13th month pay of bus drivers and conductors must be one-twelth
(1/12) of their total earnings during the calendar year. ( Philippine Agricultural
Commercial and Industrial Workers Union vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 256)
- If reinstatement is no longer possible, private respondent should be
awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. (Pepsi Cola Distributors of the
Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 386)
- The term bonus as used in employment contracts, conveys an idea of
something which is gratuitous, or which may be claimed to be gratuitous, over and
above the prescribed wage which the employer agrees to pay. (Marcos vs. NLRC,
248 SCRA 146)
Termination Pay
- The acceptance of termination pay does not divest a laborer of the right to
prosecute his employer for unfair labor practice acts. (Marcos vs. NLRC, 248
SCRA 146)
Eight-Hour Labor law and Overtime
- Overtime pay, earnings and other remunerations which are not part of the
basic salary shall not be included in the computation of the 13 th month pay.
(Philippine Duplicators, Inc. vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 380)
Classification of Employment

- Legal secretaries fall under the category of confidential employees. (Pier 8

Arrastre & Stevedoring Services, Inc. vs. Roldan-Confessor, 241 SCRA 294)
Dismissal, Suspension and Reinstatement of Laborers and Employees
- Gross negligence implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight
care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard
of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. (Citibank, N.A. vs.
Gatchalian, 240 SCRA 212)
- Lost of trust and confidence is one of the just cause for termination.
(Zamboanga City Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Buat, 243 SCRA 47)
- Moral damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of the employee
was attended by bad faith or fraud, or constituted an act oppressive to labor or was
done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. (Zamboanga
City Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Buat, 243 SCRA 47)
- It is the lack of clear, valid and legal cause that is constitutive of illegal
dismissal warranting reinstatement and the award of backwages. (General Textile,
Inc. vs. NLRC,m 243 SCRA 232)
-The Supreme Court has held that strained relationship is fairly established if
the records of the case consistent refusal of the employer to accept dismissed
employee. (Congson vs. NLRC, 243 SCRA 260)
- Refusal of the dismissed employee to be readmitted is constitutive of
strained relations. (Congson vs. NLRC, 243 SCRA 260)
- Private respondents demand for separation pay was an acknowledgment
by him that because of the strain in his relation with his employer, reinstatement
was no longer feasible. (FRF Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC, 243 SCRA 593)
- Right to procedural due process was violated when no hearing was
conducted prior to dismissal. (Worldwide Papermills, Inc. vs. NLRC, 244 SCRA
125)
- In cases of dismissal for breach of trust and confidence proof beyond
reasonable doubt of an employees misconduct is not required. (Maranaw Hotel &
Resort Corp. (Century Park Sheraton Manila) vs. NLRC, 244 SCRA 375)
- On the issue of the legality of the dismissal, two requisites must concur to
constitute a valid dismissal: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes
expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code, and (b) the employee must be
accorded due process, basic of which are the opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself. (Oania vs. NLRC, 244 SCRA 668)

- Violation of the company rule prohibiting the infliction of harm or physical

injury against any person under the particular circumstances provided for in the
same rule may be deemed analogous to serious misconduct stated in Article 282
(a) of the Labor Code. (Oania vs. NLRC, 244 SCRA 668)
- In labor cases, technical rules of procedure are not be strictly applied if he
result would be detrimental to the working man. (Oania vs. NLRC, 244 SCRA
668)
- While there is no proof of private respondent was moved by ill motive or
bad faith in dismissing the petitioners, equity and the spirit of the Labor Code
dictate that the petitioners be reinstated to their respective former positions without
loss of seniority rights and the backwages be awarded for three (3) years computed
from the time of their dismissal. (Oania vs. NLRC, 244 SCRA 668)
- Reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition from which one had
been removed or separated. (Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. vs. NLRC, 245
SCRA 627)
- Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not entail proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the employees misconduct. (Vallende vs.NLRC, 245 SCRA
662)
- The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, and a
formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential.
(Navarro III vs. Damasco, 246 SCRA 260)
- An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to
the time of his actual reinstatement. (Jackson Building Condominium Corp. vs.
NLRC, 246 SCRA 329)
- Dismissal of an employee due to his prolonged absence with leave by
reason of illness duly established by the presentation of a medical certificate is not
justified. (Oriental Mindoro Electric Corp. vs. NLRC, 246 SCRA 794)
- For an employer o validly terminate the service of his employees under
Article 283 of the Labor Code, he has to comply with two requirements, namely:
(a) serving a written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor and
Employment at least one month before the taking effect of the closure, and (b)
payment of separation pay equivalent to one month pay or at least one-half (1/2)
month pay for every year service, whichever is higher, with a fraction of at least six
monts to be considered one whole year. (Catatista vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 46)
- The first right of an unjustly dismissed employee is therefore reinstatement
to his work except if reinstatement will most probably do him less good and more
harm. (Palmeria, Sr. vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 57)

- Requirements of due process of law are deemed to have been satisfied

where parties are given opportunity to submit position papers. (Pepsi Cola
Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 386)
- Penalty of dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate for an infraction
which appears to be excusable. (Pepsi Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. vs.
NLRC, 247 SCRA 386)
- Dismissal due to loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willfu
breach of trust. Considering that private respondent was acting in good faith, his
dismissal would run counter to such established ruling. (Philippine International
Commercial Bank vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 614)
- For loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for an employees
dismissal, it must be substantial and not arbitrary and must be founded on clearly
established facts sufficient to warrant the employees separation from work. (Labor
vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 183)
- A dismissal must not only be for a valid or substantial cause, the employer
must also observe the procedural aspect of due process in giving the employee
notice and the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. (Labor vs. NLRC,
248 SCRAAA 183)
- Where the dismissal of an employee is in fact for a just cause and valid
cause but he is not accorded his right to due process, the dismissal shall be upheld
but the employer must be sanctioned, in the nature of indemnification or penalty,
for non-compliance with the requirements of or for failure to observe due process.
(Sebuguero vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532)
- In labor case, laches may be applied only upon the most convincing
evidence of deliberate inaction, for the rights of laborers are protected under the
social justice provisions of the Constitution and under the Civil Code. (Reno
Foods, Inc. vs. NLRC, 249 SCRA 379)
- An action for reinstatement by reason of illegal dismissal is one base on an
injury to the complainants rights which should be brought within four years from
the time of dismissal pursuant to Article 1146 of the Civil law. Reno Foods, Inc. vs.
NLRC, 249 SCRA 379)
- Employees bears the burden of proof to show that the dismissal is just for
cause failing in which would mean that the dismissal is not justified and the
employee is entitled to reinstatement. (Molave Tour Corp. vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA
325)
- An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits as their monetary

equivalent computed from the time of his actual reinstatement. (Molave Tours
Corp. NLRC, 250 SCRA 325)
- The burden of proving that the termination of an employee is for valid or
authorized cause rests on the employer. (Magnolia Corp. vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA
332)
- Employers are given wide latitude of discretion in terminating the
employment of managerial employees on the ground of lack of trust and
confidence. (San Antonio vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA 359)
- Loss of confidence must rest, to be a valid of cause for terminating the
employment, on an actual breach of duty committed by the employee and not
merely on the employers imagined whim and caprice. (San Antonio vs. NLRC, 250
SCRA 359)
- The act upon which the loss of trust is predicated must be related to the
performance of the duties of the employee such as would thereby show him to be
indeed unfit to continue working for the employer. (San Antonio vs. NLRC, 250
SCRA 359)
-Consultations and conferences may not be valid substitute for actual
observance of notice and hearing. (San Antonio vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA 359)
- Any procedural shortcut, that effectively allows an employer to assume the
roles of both accuser and judge at the same time, should mot be countenanced.
(San Antonio vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA 359)
- Abandonment of work is inconsistent with the filing of a plaint for illegal
dismissal within the reglementary period. Clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal
to assume employment and not mere absence is required to constitute abandonment
as a valid ground for termination of employment. (Jones vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA
668)
- The employer must furnish the worker with two (2) written notices before
termination of employment can be legally effected; (a) notice which apprises the
employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and
(b) subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employers decision to
dismiss him. (Jones vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA 668)
- Where a parties position paper and other documentary evidence which it
filed were duly considered by the National Labor Relation Commissions, such
partys claim of denial of due process is set at naught. (Philippine Telegraph and
Telephone Corp. (PT&T) vs. NLRC, 251 SCRA 21)
- Among the just causes or valid grounds for termination of employment by
the employer is fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in
him by his employer or duly authorized representative. (Falguera vs. Linsangan,
251 SCRA 364)

- The recognizes the right of every business entity to reduce its work force if
the same is made necessary by compelling economic factors which would
endanger its existence or stability. (Balbalec vs. NLRC, 251 SCRA 398)
- Consideration of first offense and length of service are overshadowed by
the seriousness of the offense. As to whether an offense is minor or serious will
have to be determined according to the peculiar facts of each case. (Villeno vs.
NLRC, 251 SCRA 494)
- To constitute a valid dismissal from employment two (2) requisites must
concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the cases provided in Article 282 of the
Labor Code ; and (b) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to
defend himself. (Molato vs. NLRC, 266 SCRA 42)
- For misconduct or improper behavior to be just cause for dismissal the
same must be related to performance of the employees duties and must show that
has become unfit to continue working for the employer. (Molato vs. NLRC, 266
SCRA 42)
- Constructive dismissal was defined as a quitting because continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving
demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. (Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply,
Inc. vs. NLRC, 266 SCRA 97)
- The burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing employees from
employment rests on the employer and the latters failure to do so results in a
finding that the dismissal was unfounded. (Reformist Union of R.B. Liner, Inc. vs.
NLRC, 266 SCRA 713)
- The standard by which to judge the validity of a lay-off is good faith. (Dela
Cruz vs. NLRC, 268 SCRA 458)
- In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for
dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the employer. (Dela Cruz
vs. NLRC, 268 SCRA 458)
- An employer may terminate the services of an employee due to loss of trust
and confidence, but the loss must on willful breach, not ordinary breach, by the
latter of the trust reposed in him by the former. (Dela Cruz vs. NLRC, 268 SCRA
458)
- The failure of the employer to accept the employees back after their
absences constitutes constructive discharge or dismissal. (Ala Mode Garments, Inc.
vs. NLRC, 268 SCRA 497)
- The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity
to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of. (Mirano vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 96)

- Serving written notices to the employee, viz.: (1) notice stating the charges
against him; and (2) notice of the decision to dismiss him are not enough, the
employee must be afforded the opportunity to be heard and to depend himself with
the assistance of his representative, if he desires. (Mirano vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA
96)
- An employees failure to specifically deny or explain the charges against
him should not be deemed fatal to his claim since technical rules of evidence are
not strictly followed in labor cases. (Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC,
270 SCRA 290)
- Our laws as well as the Supreme Court have consistently recognized and
respected an employers right to terminate the services of an employee for just or
authorized causes but this prerogative must be exercised in good faith. (Samar II
Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 290)
- The decision to dismiss must be in accord with the law and the evidence
and not merely the whim or caprice of the employer. (Samar II Electric
Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 290)
- The doctrine on strained relations cannot be applied indiscriminately
since every labor dispute almost invariably results in strained relations. (Capili
vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 488)
- The dismissal of an employee due to an alleged violation of a company
policy, where it was found that the violation was acquiesced in by said employees
immediate superiors and the policy violated had not always been adhered to by the
management, is an act not amounting to a breach of trust, thereof not justification
for said employees dismissal. (Conti vs. NLRC, 271 SCRA 114)
- Loss of confidence as a just cause for dismissal was never intended to
provide employers with a blank check for terminating their employees. Loss of
confidence should ideally apply only to cases involving employees occupying
positions of trust and confidence or to those situations where the employee is
routinely charged with the care and custody of the employers money or property.
(Mabeza vs. NLRC, 271 SCRA 670)
- Loss of confidence should not be simulated in order to justify what would
otherwise be, under the provisions of law, an illegal dismissal. (Mabeza vs. NLRC,
271 SCRA 670)
- Suspicious delay in the employers filing of qualified theft charges against
an employee long after the latter exposed the formers scheme (to avoid its
obligations as employer under the Labor Code) by her act of filing illegal dismissal
charges against said employer would hardly warrant sserious consideration of loss
of confidence as a valid ground for dismissal. (Mabeza vs. NLRC, 271 SCRA 670)

- The act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the

employer observed labor standards provisions of law when he might have not,
together with the act terminating coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the
employers scheme, constitutes unfair labor practice. (Mabeza va. NLRC, 271
SCRA 670)
- In termination cases, the burden of proving the existence of a just and valid
cause for dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the employer,
and the latters failure to do so inevitably results in a finding that dismissal is
unjustified. (Tradeline Employees Association-Southern Philippines Federation of
Labor vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 172)
- There is a high degree of trust and confidence reposed on route salesmen
when that confidence is breached, proper disciplinary actions may be taken. (Pepsi
Cola Distributors of the Philippines vs. NLRC, 272 SCRA 267)
- The penalty of dismissal for non-observance of the rules and regulations of
an employer concerning 30-day advance notice prior to resignation is too harsh.
(Phimco Industries vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 286)
- The ground willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by
his employer must be founded on facts established by the employer who must
clearly and convincingly prove by substantial evidence the facts and incidents upon
which loss of confidence in the employee may fairly be made to rest. (Equitable
Banking Corporation vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 352)
- Neither moral nor exemplary damages are due an illegally dismissed
employee where his employer was not motivated by malice or bad faith nor did it
act in wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner in terminating the formers
services. (Equitable Banking Corporation vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 352)
- The basic premise for dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence is that
the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. (Atlas Fertilizer
Corp. vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 549)
- When an employee has been guilty of breach of trust or his employer has
ample reason to distrust him, a labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the
authority to dismiss him. (Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. NLRC, 273 SCRA 549)
- Constructive dismissal exists when there is a quitting because continued
employment is rendered impossible. (Megascope General Services vs. NLRC, 274
SCRA 147)
- Attorneys fee are not recoverable where there is no sufficient showing of
bad faith. (Tumbiga vs. NLRC, 274 SCRA 338)
- Actions for illegal dismissal must be brought within four (4) years, not
three (3) years. (Nazal vs. NLRC, 274 SCRA 350)

- Although an employee is validly dismissed for cause, he may be

nevertheless be given separation pay as a measure of social justice provided he is
not guilty of serious misconduct reflecting on his moral character. (Philippine
Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 279 SCRA 106)
Resignation
- Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an employee who finds
himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed
in favor of the exigency of the service, then he has no other choice but to
disassociate himself from his employment. (Molave Tours Corp. vs. NLRC, 250
SCRA 325)
- Resignation is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office. It
must be made with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by an act
of relinquishment. (Molave Tours Corp. vs. NLRC, 250 SCRA 325)
Employer-Employee Relationship
- There is employer-employee relationship where the work of private
respondents is clearly related to, and in pursuit of, the principal business activity of
petitioners. (Zanotte vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 261)
- Under the control test an employer-employee relationship exists where the
person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the
end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. (Zanotte vs.
NLRC, 241 SCRA 261)
- The essential elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (a) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the
power of dismissal; and (d) the power of control with regard to the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished, with the power of control being
the most determinative factor. (Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association vs.
NLRC, 241 SCRA 643)
- The power of the control refers merely to the existence of the power and
not to the actual exercise thereof. It is essential for the employee to actually
supervise the performance of duties of the employee; it is enough that the former
has a right to wield the power. (MAM Realty Development Corp. vs. NLRC, 244
SCRA 797)
- A corporation, being a juridical entity, may act only through its directors,
officers and employees and obligations incurred by them, acting as such corporate
agents, are not theirs but the direct accountabilities. (MAM Realty Development
Corp. vs. NLRC, 244 SCRA 797)

- Retrenchment is one of the economic grounds to dismiss employees, which

is resorted to by an employer to avoid or minimize business losses. (Revidad vs.
NLRC, 245 SCEA 356)
- To prevent losses means that retrenchment or termination of the services
of some employees is authorized to be undertaken by the employer sometime
before the anticipated losses are actually sustained or realized. (Revidad vs. NLRC,
245 SCRA 356)
- Existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual question and
public respondents finding are accorded great weight and respect as the same are
supported by substantial evidence. (Mainland Construction Co., Inc. vs. Movilla,
250 SCRA 290)