119.

TANGGA-AN vs PHIL TRANSMARINE CARRIERS INC

GR NO. 180636 MAR. 13, 2013

ISSUE:
Is the indemnity provided in Section 10 of RA 8042 entitling the migrant worker to back wages
corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract only limited to three months?

RULING:
No. The Court held that when the illegally dismissed employee’s employment
contract has a term of less than one year, he/she shall be entitled to recovery of salaries
representing the unexpired portion of his/her employment contract. A plain reading of Sec.
10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas
contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract or three (3) months salary for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less,
comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least one (1)
year or more. This is evident from the wording "for every year of the unexpired term" which
follows the wording "salaries x x x for three months." To follow petitioners’ thinking that
private respondent is entitled to three (3) months salary only simply because it is the lesser
amount is to completely disregard and overlook some words used in the statute while giving
effect to some. This is contrary to the well-established rule in legal hermeneutics that in
interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect
since the lawmaking body is presumed to know the meaning of the words employed in the
statute and to have used them advisedly. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat . Thus, Tangga-an
is entitled to back wages equivalent to four months, the unexpired term of his contract.

1
120. ALERT SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY vs PASILAWAN ET AL.
GR NO. 182307 SEPT 14, 2011

ISSUE:
1) Is a complaint filed against the employer by the employee a valid ground for
dismissal?
2) Is there abandonment of work when an employee fails to report to his new
assignment?

RULING:

1) No. The Labor Code, as amended, enumerates several just and authorized causes
for a valid termination of employment. An employee asserting his right and asking
for minimum wage is not among those causes. Dismissing an employee on this
ground amounts to retaliation by management for an employee’s legitimate
grievance without due process. Such stroke of retribution has no place in
Philippine Labor Laws.

2) No. For abandonment of work to fall under Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code, as
amended, as gross and habitual neglect of duties there must be the concurrence
of two elements. First, there should be a failure of the employee to report for work
without a valid or justifiable reason, and second, there should be a showing that
the employee intended to sever the employer-employee relationship, the second
element being the more determinative factor as manifested by overt acts. A
complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with the charge of abandonment,
because when an employee takes steps to protect himself against a dismissal, this
cannot, by logic, be said to be abandonment by him of his right to be able to work.

2
121. ARCHBUILD MASTERS AND CONSTRUCTION INC vs NLRC
GR NO. 108142 DEC. 26, 1995

ISSUE:
Can project employees be dismissed on the ground of the proximate completion of the project
for which their employment was engaged?

RULING:
No. As a project employee of ARMACON, Cayanga’s employment may be terminated
upon the completion of the project as there would be no further need for his services. Since
a project employee's work depends on the availability of projects, necessarily the duration
of his employment is not permanent but coterminous with the work to which he is assigned.
However, for project workers employed in the construction industry, employers are allowed
to reduce their work force into a number suited for the remaining work to be done upon the
completion or proximate accomplishment of the construction project. The employment of a
project worker hired for a specific phase of a construction project is understood to be
coterminus with the completion of such phase and not upon the accomplishment of the
whole project. Project workers in the construction industry may also be terminated as the
phase of a construction project draws nearer to completion when their services are no longer
needed provided they are not replaced.

If a project employee is dismissed his removal must still comply with the substantive
and procedural requirements of due process. Therefore, a project employee hired for a
specific task also enjoys security of tenure. A termination of his employment must be for a
lawful cause and must be done in a manner which affords him the proper notice and hearing.
Thus, a project employee must be duly furnished a written notice of his impending dismissal
and must be given the opportunity to dispute the legality of his removal. We find it in the
interest of justice to require employers to state the reason for their project employees'
dismissal and prove this ground once its veracity is challenged. Employers who hire project
employees are mandated to prove the actual basis for the latter's dismissal. A mere claim of
project completion is not sufficient to terminate a project worker's employment without
adequate proof to demonstrate such claims. In termination cases, the burden of proving that
an employee has been lawfully dismissed lies with the employer.

3
122. FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORP. vs CALIMBAS
GR NO. 179256 JULY 10, 2013

ISSUE:
Can the principal terminate the services of employees engaged by a labor-only
contractor on the ground of the expiration of the contract to provide services?

RULING:
No. In this case, it was sufficiently established that there exists an employer employee
relationship between FPIC and the workers, the former exercising the power of control over
their work performance. And having served for almost five years at FPIC, Calimbas and
Mahilom have already attained the status of regular employees. Therefore, they could
only be dismissed for just causes as provided for by Article 282 of the Labor Code.
FPIC failed to show any valid or just cause under the Labor Code on which it may justify the
termination of services of the employees. Also, apart from notifying that their service s had
already been terminated, FPIC failed to comply with the rudimentary requirement of
notifying respondents regarding the acts or omissions which led to the termination of their
services as well as giving them an ample opportunity to contest the legality of their dismissal.
Having failed to establish compliance with the requirements of termination of employment
under the Labor Code, the employees’ dismissal is tainted with illegality.

4
123. POSEIDON INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SERVICES INC vs TAMALA ET AL.
GR NO. 186475 JULY 26, 2013

ISSUE:
Can employees of a vessel dismissed due to stoppage of fishing operations validly claim
for their unpaid salaries pursuant to Section 10 of RA 8042?

RULING:
No. The application of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 presumes a finding of illegal
dismissal. In this case, the Court held that the dismissal of the employees was not tainted
with illegality, Van Doorn having complied with the legal requisites. Article 283 of the Labor
Code provides that “The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due
to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or
the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing
is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice
on the workers and the [Department of Labor and Employment] at least one (1) month
before the intended date thereof. x x x In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases
of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious
business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month
pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Since
Poseidon ceased its fishing operations in the valid exercise of its management prerogative,
Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 finds no application.

5
124. FIANZA vs NLRC
GR NO. 163601 JUN 26, 2013

ISSUE:
Is an employee said to have abandoned his work during t he pendency of his
reinstatement to the company’s payroll?

RULING:
No. For a valid finding of abandonment, these two factors should be present: (1) the
failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear
intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more
determinative factor which is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that
the employees has no more intention to work. The intent to discontinue the employment
must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified. The very act of filing the
Complaint for illegal dismissal should have negated any intention on petitioner’s part to
sever his employment. In fact, it should already have been sufficient evidence to declare that
there was no abandonment of work. Moreover, petitioner went back to the company several
times to inquire about the status of his employment. The fact that his inquiries were
not answered does not prejudice this position.