You are on page 1of 3

LABOR DOCTRINES

1) PEOPLE v. PANIS
Promise employment in Saudi Arabia to four separate individuals

ART 13 (b) of the Labor Code

"(b) 'Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, 'enlisting,


contracting, transporting, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement."

The Article 13(b) of the Labor Code was merely intended to create a presumption, and not to impose a condition on the basic
rule nor to provide an exception thereto.

2) LAZO v. SALAC

PASEI filed a petition for declaratory relief and prohibition contending that Section 6 of R.A. 8042 defining Illegal Recruitment for
being unconstitutional. It was contended that it is vague as it fails to distinguish between licensed and non-licensed recruiters and
for that reason gives undue advantage to the non-licensed recruiter.

Illegal recruitment" as defined in Section 6 is clear and unambiguous and, contrary to the RTC’s finding, actually makes a
distinction between licensed and non-licensed recruiters. By its terms, persons who engage in "canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers" without the appropriate government license or authority are guilty of illegal
recruitment whether or not they commit the wrongful acts enumerated in that section.

3) SUNACE INTERNATIONAL v. NLRC

Theory of Imputed Knowledge

As agent of its foreign principal, [Sunace] cannot profess ignorance of such an extension as obviously, the act of its principal
extending [Divina's] employment contract necessarily bound it. The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of
the agent, Sunace, to the principal, employer, not the other way around. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer
cannot, therefore, be imputed to its agent Sunace.

4) SERRANO v. GALLANT

Downgraded employment. The 5th paragraph of Sec. 10, RA 8042 "does not provide for the award of overtime pay, which
should be proven to have been actually performed, and for vacation leave pay." is null and void for being contrary to Sec. 1, Art.
III, and Sec. 3, Art. XIII of the Constitution.

5) YAP v. THENAMARIS

A seaman was illegally dismissed and awarded by the Labor Arbiter his salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract for a
period of nine months.

Doctrine of operative fact

‘The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity and fair play. It nullifies
the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of
unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be
erased by a new judicial declaration.’

“Following Serrano, we hold that this case should not be included in the aforementioned exception. After all, it was not the
fault of petitioner that he lost his job due to an act of illegal dismissal committed by respondents. To rule otherwise would be
iniquitous to petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal that principals/employers and
recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFW’s security of tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually
profit from such violation based on an unconstitutional provision of law.”

6) MERALCO v. NLRC

Breach of trust of the company.


In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its implementing regulations, the workingman's welfare should
be the primordial and paramount consideration. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and
compassionate spirit of the law as provided for in Article 4 of the New Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be
resolved in favor of labor"

7) JUCO v. NLRC

The employees of government-owned and/or controlled corporations, whether created by special law or formed as subsidiaries
under the general Corporation Law, are governed by the Civil Service Law and not by the Labor Code, this ruling has been
supplanted by the 1987 Constitution. Thus, the said Constitution now provides: "The civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with
original charter."

We ruled that the new phrase "with original charter" means that government-owned and controlled corporations refer to
corporations chartered by special law as distinguished from corporations organized under the Corporation Code.

Having been incorporated under the Corporation Law, its relations with its personnel are governed by the Labor Code and come
under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission.

8) REPUBLIC v. CA

National Parks Development Committee-EO 30. Rizal Park Supervisory Employees Association under NPDC staged a strike alleging
unfair labor practices by NPDC.

While NPDC employees are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to organize and join unions of their choice, there is as yet no
law permitting them to strike. In case of a labor dispute between the employees and the government, Section 15 of Executive
Order No. 180 dated June 1, 1987 provides that the Public Sector Labor-Management Council, not the Department of Labor and
Employment, shall hear the dispute. Clearly, the Court of Appeals and the lower court erred in holding that the labor dispute
between the NPDC and the members of the NPDSA is cognizable by the Department of Labor and Employment.

9) JAMER v. NLRC

We reiterate the rule that in cases of dismissal for breach of trust and confidence, proof beyond doubt of the employees'
misconduct is not required. It is sufficient that the employer had reasonable ground to believe that the employees are responsible
for the misconduct which renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by their position. In the case at hand, it
cannot be doubted that respondents succeeded in discharging its burden of proof.

10) SSS EMPLOYEE ASSOC. v. CA

In Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 the employees in the civil service are denominated as “government employees” and that the SSS is one
such government-controlled corporation with an original charter, having been created under R.A. No. 1161, its employees are
part of the civil service and are covered by the Civil Service Commission’s memorandum prohibiting strikes.

11) NITTO ENTERPRISES vs. NLRC and ROBERTO CAPILI

Nitto Enterprises did not comply with the requirements of the law. It is mandated that apprenticeship agreements entered into
by the employer and apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program duly approved by the
Minister of Labor and Employment. Thus, the apprenticeship agreement has no force and effect; and Capili is considered to be a
regular employee of the company.

12) ATTLANTA INDUSTRIES v. SEBOLINO


The Master List (of employees) that the petitioners heavily rely upon as proof of their position that the respondents were
not Atlanta’s employees, at the time they were engaged as apprentices, is unreliable and does not inspire belief. With the
expiration of the first agreement and the retention of the employees, Atlanta had, to all intents and purposes, recognized
the completion of their training and their acquisition of a regular employee status. To foist upon them the second
apprenticeship agreement for a second skill which was not even mentioned in the agreement itself, is a violation of the Labor
Code’s implementing rules and is an act manifestly unfair to the employees, to say the least.

13) CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION, vs COURT OF APPEALS and GLORIA C. PALAD

The Court held that the apprenticeship agreement which Palad signed was not valid and binding because it was executed
more than two months before the TESDA approved petitioners apprenticeship program. Under Article 280 of the Labor
Code, an employment is deemed regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

14) BERNARDO v. NLRC

The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee should be given the same terms and
conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied person. The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons
necessarily removes the employment contracts from the ambit of Article 80. Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights
of qualified able-bodied persons, they are thus covered by Article 280 of the Labor Code.

Without a doubt, the task of counting and sorting bills is necessary and desirable to the business of respondent bank.

15) MARIWASA v. LEOGARDO

Both here and in the Buiser case, the parties agreement resulted in the extension of the period prescribed by law, the only
difference being that in the former, an eighteen-month probationary period was stipulated in the original contract of
employment while in the case at bar, an extension was agreed upon at or prior to the expiration of the statutory six-month
period. By voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the probationary period, Dequila in effect waived any benefit attaching to
the completion of said period if he still failed to make the grade during the period of extension.