SEABORNE CARRIER CORPORATION VS NLRC

LABOR LAW Prs allegation of non-payment of these benefits need not to be

supported by evidence unless it is an essential part of cause of action.
Cont main COC is illegal dismissal, and claim for monetary benefits is but
an incident of the protest against such dismissal.

FACTS

PR began working on April 8 1983 as Tug Master with a monthly salary of

2,435
Sep 15 1987, the tugboat he was manning met an accident. Half of the cost
was shouldered by Seaborne, the other half by the PR and an initial deduction
in his salary of 250.
Sep 24, 1987, he sought permission to go on leave of absence to ask from
DOLE if such deduction was legal, but it was not granted.
He was asked by petitioner Gatan, Seabornes President and manager to
tender his resignation.
When he refused, he had not yet received any separation pay, he was
dismissed.
PR filed complaint against SB for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction, unpaid
wages, and later included Gatan as party-respondent and to embrace claims
for overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, sick leave pay, damages and
attys fees.
LA rendered judgment declaring the dismissal illegal, reinstatement
Petitioners first and second motions for reconsideration were both denied by
NLRC for lack of merit.
Petitioners are asking the Court to set aside and nullify NLRCs decision for: a)
NLRC erred in concluding that PR is entitled to service incentive leave
benefits, b) erred in holding Jerry Ronaldo Gatan liable.
Petitioners contention; award to PR should not have included service
incentive leave pay because it was never sought in the complaint and PR is
already enjoying vacation leave benefits, which bars the employee from
entitlement.
Cont. PR failed to prove that he is entitled to the same, nor did specify
which holiday or what year he was not paid said benefits.
COURT CONTENTION: burden of proving that payment of said benefits has
been made rests upon the party who will suffer if no benefits at all is
presented by either party (employer)
SECOND ISSUE: whether Jerry Gatan is liable for the payment of backwages,
and other monetary benefits.
NLRC relied on the decision in Garcia vs NLRC, where the personal liability of
officers to dimiss employees was made to depend on whether officers acted

with evident malice and bad faith. Jerry Gatan did not act with malice or bad
faith in terminating the services of PR.
All the evidence shows is that petitioner ordered PR to resign and dismissed
him when he failed to do so. There is no evidence that Jerry Gatan sanctioned
the deduction of 250, as well as the denial of the latters request for leave of
absence.
Court is not convinced that Gatan is acted with malice and bad faith. Liability
of petitioner Seaborne is hereby affirmed, while Gatan is exempted from
liability.

NARIC VS NARIC

Night work if an employee performs his regular eight hours up to 5pm, and
renders overtime from 5-9pm, the said employee is entitled to an additional
compensation for overtime services and at the same time additional
compensation for nightwork.
One who does night work can also be paid overtime compensation.

FACTS:

Court of Industrial Relations promulgated a decision dated Feb 15 1956,

directing NARIC to pay its workers 25% additional compensation for night
work rendered by them.
IC issued an order directing its chief examiner/any of his assistants to
compute additional compensation for nightwork granted in this decision
covering the period from October 3 1952 to feb 16 1953.
Aug 7 1956 shows that there are 163 workers and employees who have
rendered night work and 25% additional compensation on the basis of the
respective monthly salary to P5,221.84
Sep 24, 195, union filed with the court praying that the corporation be
ordered to deposit w/ the court the said amount.
Corpo filed its opposition contending that said motion is premature because
the report of the examiner has not yet been passed and approved by the
court, and not yet final.
Chief examiner stated that all work perfoemd bet 6pm-6am must be awarded
an additional compensation of 25%
Cont if an employee worked 8am-5pm, and then work 5-6pm, he is entitled
to overtime pay, 6-7pm, he is entitled to overtime + night wok compensation
MAIN ISSUE: should the employee performing his regular 8hr wok be paid
for his services from 5pm-9pm as overtime work.

Respondent court decision: night work is any and all work rendered bet
6pm-6am and consequently id a certain employee performs his regular eight
hours and renders overtime is entitled to overtime compensation.
In the case of Shell company, comment was made: night work which shell
company demands of its laborers is not merely overtime work but it is in
reality a complete working day also of eight hours, instead of its being done
in daytime, it is performed at night. In other words, night work is not an
excess, extension or overtime but rather another kind of work absolutely
independent of the work being done during the day.
The comment only served to emphasize that the demand which the shell
company made upon its laborer is not merely an overtime work but night
work, so theres a need to differentiate night work from day time work.
Company contention: there was no law that required the payment for
additional compensation for night work unlike an overtime pay covered by
commonwealth act no 44.
One is paid for his work done during the night and the other is paid
because it is in excess of the regular 8hr work. One is done for
reason of health and other because of an express mandate of the
law.
Work done at night should be paid more than the work done by the chief
examiner.

REO TAN VS NRCC

When compensable although not approved by the dept head if work

performed was necessary, benefited the company, employee could not
abandon his work at the end of his 8hr work bcause there was no substitute
ready to take his place.

Facts:

Court of the first instance of manila sentencing the NARIC to pay Fermin
Reotan 5, 806.61 from Sept 14 55, plu 500 attys fees, 2) to pay Silvestre
Reotan 3,647.03 and other costs, and Praxedes Balane.
Plaintiffs Fermin Reotan, Silestre Reotan and Praxedes Balane were guardswatchmen in the agencies/branches of NARIC in Naga, camarines Sur and
Tabaco, Albay, and Daet Camarines Norte.
Agencies had each only two guards-watchmen, the latter had been required
by their superiors to work in two shift, except when they are on vacation or
sick leave.
Having demands of payment of the corresponding overtime compensation
which were not heeded by NARIC, rendered decision in favor of them

Plaintiffs rendered overtime services has been fully established not only by
their testimony but also by their corresponding officer-in-charge of the
agencies of the NARIC, and also by their respective time records.
NARIC MAINTAINS: President-Manager had ordered that except in special
cases of overtime work approved by the management to be with pay, no
payment of overtime pay will be approved.
Cont case should be dismissed because upon petition filed by the NARIC
workers union, the same extended naric workers in the province, granting
(rely on the case)
Cont,.. eight hour labor la is inapplicable to the naric, period during which
said plaintiffs were on leave of absence should not have been included in the
computation.
Lower court overruled this pretense (first) upon the ground that: any
agreement on contract bet employer and laborer contrary to the provision of
this act shall be null and void ab initio. Even in cases of calamity, to prevent
loss of life and property. Sec 3 of commonwealth act no 444 provides that all
such cases which the laborers are entitled to receive compensation for the
overtime work performed at the same rate, plus at least 25% per centum
additional.

DAMASCO VS NLRC

Technical rules of procedure in labor cases are not to be strictly applied if the
result would be detrimental to the working woman.
Essence of due process in administrative proceedings is simply an
opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of.
To constitute abandonment: 1) failure to work or absence without valid or
justifiable reason 2)a clear intention to sever the employer-employee
relationship.
Abandoning meaning the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to
resume his employment and the burden of proof is on the employer.

FACTS

Imelda Damasco Petitioner, regular sales clerk in Manila Glass

Supply in Olongapo City
Manila Glass Supply is a private respondent a sole proprietorship
engaged in the sale of glass with the main store in Olongapo and
Metro Manila. Bonifacio Sia is PR, owner
Damasco was employed in Manila Glass as Sales Clerk on January 30 1992,
receiving daily wage of 140, required to do almost all the works related to the

glass business. ( cutting, sales, delivery of glass, counting and checking the
capital)
She was made to work at 8:30am to 9:30pm from Monday to Sunday, without
having been paid overtime pay, rest day, and holiday pay.
During period of her employment, she was not paid 13 th month pay, service
incentive leave pay
August 28 1992, 7pm, while she was working, Bonifacio called her up and
told her to finish all her works in the evening, but Damasco said that she
cant finish everything because its already late.
Bonifacio asked why she cant finish the work, what is she doing since
Bonifacio left for MNL. Damasco replied that she was attending to the sales,
to the field and other things related to the business of respondent.
Boni asked why is she not teaching her two other co-workers, Dama replied
that if the co-workers commit mistakes in accounting and sales, she will be
the first one to be lambasted by respondent.
Boni picked up and swiped the ashtray in front of complainant who began to
tremble in fear, respondent ordered her to go out and told her that he
doesnt want to see her anymore.
Alma, brought her home, and since then, she did not report from work.
Respondents contention: Dama was instructed by Boni to report for work
in their store in MNLL as there was necessity for her detail thereat that the
employees there are new and do not hae experience. Complainant
manifested objection for reason that her husband work in Olongapo and she
doesnt want to work in Metro mnl
Cont. thereafter, the complainant did not report for work, when respondent
sent some of his employees in the house of complainant, they were told that
she is sick and cannot report for work.
Cont first week of January 1993, respondent received an instant complaint
filed by complainant. Respondent sent a letter to the complainant, but
complainant failed and refused to report for work.
December 7 1992, Dama filed before NLRC a complaint VS Bonifacio Sia and
Manila Glass Supply. Complainant is suing her employer for illegal dismissal
and non-payment of overtime pay. She added the non-payment of 13 th month
pay, service incentive leave pay, night differential, and holiday pay.
Sept 2 1993, LA rendered judgment in favor of complainant, Sia has not
shown any just or authorized cause in terminating the services of Dama,
except for wild generalized statements that Dama committed serious
misconduct or willful disobedience to the lawful orders in connection with her
work.
NLRC upheld the LAs finding that Dama was illegally dismissed but modified
the Labor officials judgment. Respondents are direcyted to pay complainant
P99, 022

July 7, 1994, issued a writ of execution, NLRC deputy sheriff issued the next
day a notice of garnishment addressed to Far East Bank and Trust Company
against all credits and deposits of Bonifacio Sia and Manila Glass Supply.
In Courts view, the crucial issue for resolution is whether or not nlrc
committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the decision of LA
Both petitioners did not comply with the rule on certification against forum
shopping. The certification of non-forum shopping must be by the petitioner
or principal party and not the attorney.
SIA CONTENTION: he was deprived of the right to due process as the LA
failed to conduct a hearing for the reception of evidence. Finding that Dama
was illegally dismissed is not supported by substantial evidence. Dama
abandoned her work.
BUT. As noted by solicitor general and Dama, LA set the case several times
for preliminary conference but the parties failed to reach an amicable
settlement. LA ordered them to submit position paper where they set out and
argued factual as well as legal bases.
Cont after both parties had filed their replies, the case was deemed
submitted for resolution as the LA did not find it necessary to conduct trialtype hearing. Filing of position paper and supporting documents fulfills the
requirement of due process. And it is in the discretion of LA to determine if
there is a need of hearing.
Cont Sia cannot interpose lack of due process since he was given sufficient
time and ample chances to be heard in the present case.
Cont.. in any case, the labore arbiter used every reasonable means to
ascertain the facts by giving the parties ample opportunity to present
evidence.
the mere fact that the worker seeks reinstatement and back pay directly
rebuts the employers bare claim of abandonment by the worker of his
employment.
Sia only sent letter to Dama to go back for work 4 months after he said Dama
not to go back anymore, and after receiving Damas complaint.
If Damasco had truly forsaken her job, she would not have bothered to file a
complaint for illegal dismissal and prayed for reinstatement.
Damascos reassignment was unreasonable, considering the attendant
circumstance.
Court conclude there is no valid and just cause to terminate the employment
of Damasco.
Monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld
from him up to the time his actual reinstatement.
But.. antagonism caused a severe strain in the relationship bet her and her
employer. a more equitable disposition would be an award of separation pay
equivalent to one months pay for every year of service.
(NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deleting overtime pay
for lack of factual basis) Sia has admitted in his pleading that Dama works

8:30am-6:30pm, except holiday and Sunday. 140 salary is more than enough
to cover one hour excess work.
In view of Sias formal admission that Dmasco worked beyond eight hours
daily, the latter is entitled to overtime pay and no further proof is required.
It is necessary to have a clear and definite delineation bet an employers
regular and overtime compensation to thwart violation of the labor standards
provision.

PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT INC VS CIR

It is a well-settled doctrine in this jurisdiction that issued not raised in the trial
court may not be raised on appeal.

FACTS:

PSDC seeks reversal of the order of respondent court of industrial relations

awarding respondent Sugar Workers Associations Union counsel attys fees
equivalent to 20% and ordering lower court to compute the wage and fringe
benefits differentials due to28 individual workers who did not execute
quitclaims as well as 20% atty fees to 58 workers who entered into
agreement waiving their rights and benefits.
Feb 1956, workers-affiliates of respondent union staged a strike against
petitioner company.
After six years, the said court issued an order directing petitioner company to
reinstate the members of respondent union.
March 12, 1963, some 88 union members were reinstated by petitioner.
However, petitioner discriminated against the reemployed workers with
respect to wage rates, off season pay, cola, or granting some members
benefits lesser than those given to members of Pasudeco Workers Union.
Because of this, respondent filed with CIR a complaint for unfair labor
practice against petitioner.
CIR rendered judgment in favor of complainant
The CIR, on the aforesaid motions of respondent union, issued its order of
June 6 1974 approving and granting to respondents counsel attys fees
equivalent to 20% of total amount of final judgment.
COURT FINDS ALLEGATIONS OF PETITIONERA TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.
First assignment of error, par. A., petitioners failed to raise the issue
before the trial court. Petitioners answer to the motion for computation of

final judgment and the petition to attys lien did not raise the foregoing issue.
It is a well-settled doctrine in this jurisdiction that issued not raised in the trial
court may not be raised on appeal.
Cont. the written conformity of the president of said Sugar workers assoc
confirms the existence of such an agreement on attys fees and constitutes
and irrefutable evidence. It is evident from the tenor of the trial courts order
that the said court carefully evaluated respondents petitions and even
reduced the % from 25 to 20.
Paragraph B) the allegations of petitioner to the effect that by reason of the
quitclaims there is nothing upon which attys lien attaches is not valid. The
court finds the quitclaims not valid. 1) quitclaims were secured by petitioner
after it lost its case in the lower court to deny what is due the sugar workers
and frustrate the decision. Uses moral ascendancy as employer of the said
workers to secure said quitclaims.
Cont while rights may be waived, the same must not be contrary to law,
public order, public policy morals or good customs. And the foregoing
provisions are contrary to law. it exempts the petitioner from any legal
liability.
Cont contrary to public policy, once civil action is filed in court, the cause
of action may not be the subject of compromise unless the same is leave of
the court concerned.
Petitioners contention and the case cited in support thereof apply only when
tjere is good faith on the part of the party-litigants. In the case at bar,
petitioner acted with evident bad faith and malice. Petitioner secured the 53
quitclaims agreements individually with the 53 sugard workers without the
intervention of respondents lawyer
This subterfuge is tantamount to a sabotage of the interest of the interest of
the respondent assoc.
Petitioner contention: 53 quitclaims agreements were in the nature of a
compromise. COURT IN THE NEGATIVE. They are separate documents of
renunciation of individual rights.
The court finds petitioners allegations to the effect that the attys fees are
inequitable, exorbitant, excessive is completely without basis or merit.
Petitioner did not raise this issue in the lower court. It cannot now raise said
issue for the first time on appeal before the court.
SHELL COMPANY VS NATIONAL LABOR UNION

Court of industrial relations has obliged Shell Company to pay his workers
who work at night and an additional compensation of 50% of their regular
wages
It seems the night service needs a certain number of workers because planes
come off and landing at night, and thus necessary that evening chores for the
supply of fuels and lubricants are made.

COMPANY CONTENTION: not only there is no legal provision empowering

Industrial Relations to order the payment of additional workers who work at
night, but compensation, the commonwealth 444 relieve the employer of
such obligation.
It is clear from the provisions that: a) when a dispute between the principal
and the employer arises on wage issue, the court of industrial relations has
jurisdiction throughout the territory of the Philippines to consider resolve
disputes wages deems fair and reasonable, b) CIR has jurisdiction over any
interests, hours work, employment condition bet employer and employee, c)
in the exercise of power, CIR is not limited to decide the dispute grant
remedy but may also include in the order or decision fabrics
In the case, there is undoubtedly an industrial dispute. Shell company is not
willing to pay their workers wages at night so the National Labor Union, which
are affiliated workers of Shell demands for service night 50% or more.
What has made the CIR subject to its jurisdiction? Act no 103 of
commonwealth, to consider investigate prosecute the dispute, remunerating
work night with 50% or more than the wages a day.