Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The statement of Dr. Ong was not a categorical attestation as to the actual fitness
of Medel to resume his occupation as a seafarer. Plainly, after Medel underwent
cranioplasty to repair the fracture in his skull, it is not farfetched to assume that he
still needed additional time for his wound to heal and to recuperate in order to
restore himself to his former state of health. To our mind, the medical certificate of
Dr. Lim and not of Dr. Ong is the definitive declaration on the physical condition of
Medel. Unfortunately for petitioners, however, this declaration was issued beyond
the 240-day period pursuant to Section 2 in Rule X of the Implementing Rules of
Book IV of the Labor Code (Amended Rules on Employees Compensation ). Hence,
Medel has right to the disability benefits. - Fair Shipping Corp., and/or Kohyu
Marine Co., Ltd. vs. Joselito T. Medel, G.R. No. 177907, August 29, 2012
The initial treatment period of 120 days where the seaman is on temporary total
disability as he is totally unable to work making him entitled to basic wage during
this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is
acknowledged by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, may be
extended up to a maximum of 240 days under the conditions prescribed by law,
subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period that a permanent
partial or total disability already exists.
DUE PROCESS
Twin-notice Requirement
The essential elements of procedural due process are the twin requirements of
notice and hearing. Otherwise, the dismissal of an employee will be tainted with
illegality. Those requirements cannot be dispensed with even when the dismissal is
pursuant to the closed shop provision in the CBA. Thus, the rights of an employee to
be informed of the charges against him and to reasonable opportunity to present his
side in a controversy with either the company or his own union are not wiped away
by a union security clause or a union shop clause in a collective bargaining
agreement. - General Milling Corporation vs. Ernesto Casio, et al., G.R. No.
149552, March 10, 2010
REINSTATEMENT
Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, an employee entitled to reinstatement "shall
either
be
admitted
back
to
work under
the
same
terms
and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the
employer, merely reinstated in the payroll." - Pfizer, Inc. and/or Rey Gerardo
As there was no bad faith on the part of the company in its bargaining with the
union, deadlock was possible and did occur. Thus, because of the unresolved issue
on wage increase, there was actually a complete stoppage of the ongoing
negotiations between the parties and the union filed a Notice of Strike. A mutual
declaration would neither add to nor subtract from the reality of the deadlock then
existing between the parties. Thus, the absence of the parties mutual declaration
of deadlock does not mean that there was no deadlock. At most, it would have been
simply a recognition of the prevailing status quo between the parties. - Tabangao
Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014
PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION
PROCEDURAL RULES AND TECHNICALITIES
Failure to attach all pleadings and documents, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to
dismiss a petition. Lapses in the literal observation of a procedural rule will be
overlooked when they do not involve public policy, when they arose from an honest
mistake or unforeseen accident, and when they have not prejudiced the adverse
party or deprived the court of its authority.
When there is enough basis on which a proper evaluation of the merits of
petitioners case may be had, the Court may dispense with the time consuming
procedure of remand in order to prevent further delays in the disposition of the
case.
The essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that
an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held. Even assuming that an
employee was not fully heard during the employers investigation, it is his fault if
the same is due to his misguided insistence on having a trial type hearing despite
established jurisprudence stating that the mere opportunity to be heard would