Professional Documents
Culture Documents
YES.
decided.
upheld.
Abandonment, as understood
under our labor laws, refers to
the deliberate and unjustified
refusal of an employee to
resume his employment. It is a
form of neglect of duty that
constitutes just cause for the
employer to dismiss the
employee.
Kuya arjjay
In placing respondent on
"floating status," petitioner
further acted arbitrarily and
unfairly, making life unbearable
for her. In so doing, it treated
respondent as if she were a new
hire; it improperly disregarded
her experience, status,
performance, and achievements
in the company; and most
importantly, respondent was
illegally deprived of her salary
and other emoluments.
RULING:
RULING:
matter of duly
compensating the latter
for the services he had
rendered the petitioner
during the 11 years or
so that he had been
under its employ. The
records of the case
yield no evidence that
respondent had ever
been tricked or
hoodwinked into affixing
his signature upon the
said deed of waiver-
quitclaim cum
separation pay. His
impressive credentials
are of course ample
proof of authentic high
level academic
achievement, indicative
of a by-no-means
middling or common
place intellectual power.
The combination of all
these circumstances
thus repels the
suggestion that
respondent might not
have fully or thoroughly
grasped or understood
the plain meaning,
intendment and
significance of the
deed/document to
which he affixed his
signature, and from the
obvious and inevitable
effects of which he now
seeks to rid or extricate
himself. That by his free
and voluntary act and
deed he chose or opted
to deed away his
patrimonial rights he
has only himself to
blame. The decision of
the NLRC was
reinstated.
RULING:
RULING: YES, in
Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc. v.
Legaspi, 16 the Court
has the occasion to rule
that a petition for
certiorari is not
rendered moot by the
mere fact that there was
already an executed
NLRC decision.
[ G.R. No. 211145, October 14, 2015 ] Labor Relations ISSUES: Whether
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA HANJIN SHIPYARD REP. BY Samahan should have
ITS PRESIDENT, ALFIE ALIPIO, petitioner, vs. BUREAU OF formed a union and
LABOR RELATIONS, HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND whether they may carry
CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD. (HHIC-PHIL.), respondents.. the Hanjin name.
RULING:
bargaining or of dealing
with employers
concerning terms and
conditions of
employment." A labor
organization has two
broad rights: (1) to
bargain collectively and
(2) to deal with the
employer concerning
terms and conditions of
employment. To bargain
collectively is a right
given to a union once it
registers itself with the
DOLE. Dealing with the
employer, on the other
hand, is a generic
description of
interaction between
employer and
employees concerning
grievances, wages,
work hours and other
terms and conditions of
employment, even if the
employees' group is not
registered with the
DOLE.
Misrepresentation, as a
ground for the
cancellation of
registration of a labor
organization, is
committed "in
connection with the
adoption, or ratification
of the constitution and
by-laws or amendments
thereto, the minutes of
ratification, the list of
members who took part
in the ratification of the
constitution and by-laws
or amendments thereto,
and those in connection
with the election of
officers, minutes of the
election of officers, and
the list of voters.
According to Samahan,
inherent in the workers'
right to self-organization
is its right to name its
own organization. It
seems to equate the
dropping of words
"Hanjin Shipyard" from
its name as a restraint
in its exercise of the
right to self-
organization. Hanjin, on
the other hand, invokes
that "Hanjin Shipyard" is
a registered trade name
and, thus, it is within
their right to prohibit its
use.
As there is no
provision under our
labor laws which
speak of the use of
name by a workers'
association, the Court
refers to the
Corporation Code,
which governs the
names of juridical
persons. Section 18
thereof provides:
No corporate name
may be allowed by the
Securities and
Exchange
Kuya arjjay
Commission if the
proposed name is
identical or
deceptively or
confusingly similar to
that of any existing
corporation or to any
other name already
protected by law or is
patently deceptive,
confusing or contrary
to existing laws. When
a change in the
corporate name is
approved, the
Commission shall
issue an amended
certificate of
incorporation under
the amended name.
[Emphases Supplied]
by Hanjin.
[ G.R. No. 197852, October 19, 2015 ] Labor Relations ISSUE: Whether or not
PASIG AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL the CA erred in holding
SUPPLY CORPORATION AND CELESTINO E. DAMIAN, that petitioners’ exercise
petitioners, vs. WILSON NIEVAREZ, ALBERTO HALINA, GLORY of its management
VIC NUEVO, RICKY TORRES AND CORNELIO BALLE, prerogative to
respondents. temporarily lay-off
employees is illegal in
view of its failure to
present financial
statements to evidence
its financial losses.
RULING:
PADISCOR should
have established the
bona fide suspension of
its business operations
or undertaking that
would have resulted in
the temporary lay-off of
the respondents for a
period not exceeding six
(6) months in
accordance with the
Labor Code.
The company-designated
physicians issued two medical
reports, both dated March 27, 2012.
The disability report, on one hand,
stated that Olidana only suffered
loss of grasping power for small
objects between the fold of the
finger of one hand, which was a
Grade 10 disability or a partial
disability rating. The company-
designated physicians' final medical
report, on the other hand,
recommended that Olidana was
unfit for duty. Glaringly, these two
medical reports contradicted each
other. Interestingly, the final medical
report, which stated that Olidana
was unfit for duty, concurred with
Dr. Runas' medical evaluation
report. The latter report stated that
Olidana was physically unfit to
continue with his job as a seaman
or cook, or in whatever capacity,
due to his permanent disability.
1. The company-designated
physician must issue a final medical
assessment on the seafarer's
disability grading within a period of
120 days from the time the seafarer
reported to him;
Kuya arjjay
2. If the company-designated
physician fails to give his
assessment within the period of 120
days, without any justifiable reason,
then the seafarer's disability
becomes permanent and total;
3. If the company-designated
physician fails to give his
assessment within the period of 120
days with a sufficient justification
(e.g. seafarer required further
medical treatment or seafarer was
uncooperative), then the period of
diagnosis and treatment shall be
extended to 240 days. The
employer has the burden to prove
that the company-designated
physician has sufficient justification
to extend the period; and
4. If the company-designated
physician still fails to give his
assessment within the extended
period of 240 days, then the
seafarer's disability becomes
permanent and total, regardless of
any justification.
[ G.R. No. 192955, November 09, 2015 ] Labor RULING: YES. The power of the
EDILBERTO P. ETOM, JR., petitioner, vs. AROMA Standard Court to review a CA Decision in
LODGING HOUSE THROUGH EDUARDO G. LEM, labor cases is limited. Specifically,
PROPRIETOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, respondent. in a petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, the Court
Kuya arjjay
RULINGS:
65 petition.
ISSUES
[ G.R. No. 174115, November 09, 2015 ] Labor
PUNONGBAYAN AND ARAULLO, et al., petitioners, vs. Relations 1. Whether the factual findings of
ROBERTO PONCE LEPON, respondent. both the NLRC and the LA were
supported by substantial
evidence – YES
2. Whether respondent was validly
dismissed – YES
3. Whether respondent was
deprived of his right to due
Kuya arjjay
process – NO
RULING:
In Elizalde International
(Philippines) Inc. v. CA: One
who asserts an interest, or
performs acts adverse or
disloyal lo one's employer
commits a breach of an
implied condition of the
contract of employment which
may warrant discharge,
e.g., where one secretly
engages in a business which
renders him a competitor and
rival of his employer. An
employer has the right to
expect loyalty from his
employees as long as the
employment relationship
continues. When an employee
deliberately acquires an interest
adverse to his employer, he is
disloyal, and his discharge is
justified.
In Molina v. Pacific Plans, Inc.:
Kuya arjjay
RULING:
YES, Petitioners, as being regular
employees, are deemed to have
been constructively and illegally
dismissed by respondents. Being
on floating status and off-detailed
for more than six months, not
having been reinstated and
reassigned by respondents,
petitioners are considered to have
been constructively dismissed.
Settled is the rule that an employee
who is unjustly dismissed from work
shall be entitled to reinstatement, or
separation pay if reinstatement is
no longer viable, and to his full
backwages.
[ G.R. No. 199314 [Formerly UDK No. 14553], December Labor ISSUE: Whether or not the
07, 2015 ] Relations employees were illegally dismissed.
TAMBLOT SECURITY & GENERAL SERVICES, INC.,
petitioner, vs. FLORENCIO ITEM, LEONARDO PALM A, RULING:
et al., respondents.
YES. The respondents were
illegally dismissed. Petitioner utterly
failed to establish the requisite for
abandonment of work 1) that the
employees has failed to report for
work or must be absent without
valid or justifiable reasons 2) that
there must have been a clear
intention to severe th employee-
employer relationship by some
overt acts
ISSUES
legal?
RULING:
The Court finds that Enchanted had
basis when it decided not to
continue with the services of Verzo
as SH-MIM.
[ G.R. No. 204275, December 09, 2015 ] Labor : Whether or not he CA erred in
LILIOSA C. LISONDRA, petitioner, vs. MEGACRAFT Relations dismissing the petitioner
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SPOUSES
MELECIO AND ROSEMARIE OAMIL, respondents. RULING: YES. Before going to the
issues of the case, the court noted
that the petitioner failed to attach
copies of the decision of the LA and
the NLRC in this petition. That
alone would have been a ground to
dismiss the case outright. However
since what is at stake is petitioners
livelihood itself, leniency should be
applied in order to serve the ends of
justice
Proof of Service;
Written Explanation
A last word:
[ G.R. No. 213696, December 09, 2015 ] Labor ISSUE: Whether the appeal bond
QUANTUM FOODS, INC., petitioner, vs. MARCELINO Relations posted accompanied by a motion to
ESLOYO AND GLEN MAGSILA, respondents reduce bond is reasonable in order
to suspend the period to perfect an
appeal.
RULING: YES.
“The bond
requirement on appeals
involving monetary awards
has been and may be
relaxed in meritorious
cases. These cases include
instances in which (1) there
was substantial compliance
with the Rules, (2)
surrounding facts and
circumstances constitute
meritorious grounds to
reduce the bond, (3) a
liberal interpretation of the
requirement of an appeal
bond would serve the
desired objective of
resolving controversies on
the merits, or (4) the
appellants, at the very
least, exhibited their
willingness and/or good
Kuya arjjay
As to what constitutes “a
reasonable amount of bond” that
must accompany the motion to
reduce bond in order to suspend
the period to perfect an appeal, the
Court, in McBurnei vs. Ganzon,
pronounce:
RULING:
RULING:
(1) Yes. WMMI and GRMS
engaged in labor-only
contracting. First, GRMS lacked
the substantial capital.
Petition granted.
Whereas in RULING:
the 2nd
Issue, with YES. Iladan's resignation was
respect to voluntary; Hence, there was no
the matters illegal dismissal
involving
When it comes to illegal dismissal
placement cases, the employer has the burden
fee, it falls of proving that the employee's
under the dismissal was legal. However, to
ambit of discharge this burden, the
Labor employee must first prove, by
substantial evidence, that he had
been dismissed from employment.
Kuya arjjay
[ G.R. No. 187691, January 13, 2016] Labor ISSUE: Whether or not there is an
OLYMPIA HOUSING, INC. vs. ALLAN LAPASTORA AND Relations employer – employee relationship
IRENE UBALUBAO between Petitioner and
Respondents
RULING:
he cannot be unceremoniously
terminated from employment. "To
justify fully the dismissal of an
employee, the employer must, as a
rule, prove that the dismissal was
for a just cause and that the
employee was afforded due
process prior to dismissal. As a
complementary principle, the
employer has the onus of proving
with clear, accurate, consistent, and
convincing evidence the validity of
the dismissal.
[ G.R. No. 209921 January 13, 2016 ] Labor ISSUE: Whether or not Quiro-
QUIRO-QUIRO vs. BALAGTAS CREDIT COOPERATIVE Relations in quiro’s dismissal was valid and
& COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, INC. realtion to complied with due process
requirements.
illegal
dismissal. RULING:
Petition denied.
RULING:
[ G.R. No. 212878, February 01, 2016 ] Labor ISSUE: Whether or not Cabatay is
MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC. et al., petitioners, entitled to permanent total disability
vs. WILFREDO L. CABATAY, respondent.
Kuya arjjay
Relations compensation
RULING: