Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MAXIMO CALALANG, Petitioner, v. A. D. WILLIAMS, ET the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
AL., Respondents. economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and
[G.R. No. 47800. December 2, 1940.] objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the
LAUREL, J.: people, the adoption by the Government of measures
calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent
FACTS: elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper
economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as a private citizen and as a members of the community, constitutionally, through the
taxpayer of Manila, brought before this court this petition for a adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-
writ of prohibition against the respondents. constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the
The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution, resolved to existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of
recommend to the Director of Public Works and to the salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be
Secretary of Public Works and Communications that animal- founded on the recognition of the necessity of
drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along specified interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society
areas from a period of one year from the date of the opening and of the protection that should be equally and evenly
of the Colgante Bridge to traffic. The Chairman of the National extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and
Traffic Commission recommended to the Director of Public economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount
Works the adoption of the measure proposed in the resolution objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and
aforementioned, in pursuance of the provisions of quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good
Commonwealth Act No. 548 which authorizes said Director of to the greatest number."
Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications, to promulgate rules and RULING:
regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on
national roads. As a consequence of such enforcement, all In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed for is
animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick up hereby denied, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.
passengers in the places above-mentioned to the detriment
not only of their owners but of the riding public as well. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS,
Thus, it is contended by the petitioner that Commonwealth INC., petitioner,
Act No. 548 by which the Director of Public Works, with the vs.
approval of the Secretary of Public Works and HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor and
Communications, is authorized to promulgate rules and Employment, and TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, as
regulations for the regulation and control of the use of and Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment
traffic on national roads and streets is unconstitutional because Administration, respondents.
it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. The G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988
petitioner further contends that the rules and regulations
promulgated by the respondents pursuant to the provisions of SARMIENTO, J.:
Commonwealth Act No. 548 constitute an unlawful interference
with legitimate business or trade and abridge the right to FACTS:
personal liberty and freedom of locomotion. The petitioner
finally avers that the rules and regulations complained of The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc.,
infringe upon the constitutional precept regarding the a firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino
promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and workers, male and female, for overseas placement," challenges
economic security of all the people. the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of
1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment, in the
ISSUE: character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY
SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND
Whether CA No. 48 is unconstitutional on the grounds invoked HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this petition for certiorari and
by herein petitioner. prohibition. Specifically, the measure is assailed for
"discrimination against males or females;" that it "does not
RATIO: apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and
females with similar skills;" and that it is violative of the right
No. First, to promulgate rules and regulations on the use of to travel. It is held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the
national roads and to determine when and how long a national lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not
road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the executive, in character.
road or the traffic thereon and the requirements of public In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section 3, of
convenience and interest, is an administrative function which Article XIII, of the Constitution, providing for worker
cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly. It participation "in policy and decision-making processes affecting
must depend on the discretion of some other government their rights and benefits as may be provided by
official to whom is confided the duty of determining whether law." Department Order No. 1, it is contended, was passed in
the proper occasion exists for executing the law. Second, the absence of prior consultations. It is claimed, finally, to be
Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by the National in violation of the Charter's non-impairment clause, in addition
Assembly in the exercise of the paramount police power of the to the "great and irreparable injury" that PASEI members face
state. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment should the Order be further enforced.
of said law, and the state in order to promote the general
welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and ISSUE:
with business and occupations. Persons and property may be
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to Whether D.O. No. 1 is unconstitutional.
secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state
(U.S. v. Gomer Jesus, 31 Phil., 218). RATIO:
To this fundamental aim of our Government the rights of the
individual are subordinated. Lastly, Social justice is "neither No. As a general rule, official acts enjoy a presumed
communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but validity. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary, the presumption logically stands.
1
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, declaring the Union‘s
the contested measure should be nullified. There is no strike illegal for violating the CBA‘s no strike, no lockout,
question that Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female provision. The NLRC affirmed said decision insofar as the
contract workers," but it does not thereby make an undue former declared the strike illegal, ordered the Union officers
discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that terminated, and directed them to pay damages to the
"equality before the law" under the Constitution does not company. However, the NLRC ruled that the Union members
import a perfect Identity of rights among all men and women. involved, who were identified in the proceedings held in the
It admits of classifications, provided that (1) such case, should also be terminated for having committed
classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are prohibited and illegal acts. The CA rendered a
germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined decision annulling the NLRC decision and reinstating that of
to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all the Labor Arbiter.
members of the same class. The Court is satisfied that the
classification made-the preference for female workers — rests ISSUES:
on substantial distinctions.
The consequence the deployment ban has on the right to (1) Whether or not the Union staged an illegal strike; and
travel does not impair the right. The right to travel is subject, (2) Assuming the strike to be illegal, whether or not the
among other things, to the requirements of "public safety," "as impleaded Union members committed illegal acts during the
may be provided by law." Department Order No. 1 is a valid strike, justifying their termination from employment;
implementation of the Labor Code, in particular, its basic policy
to "afford protection to labor," pursuant to the respondent RATIO:
Department of Labor's rule-making authority vested in it by the
Labor Code. Neither is there merit in the contention that Yes. A strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor
Department Order No. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of union has complied with the strict requirements for staging
legislative power. It is true that police power is the domain of one as provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code when the
the legislature, but it does not mean that such an authority same is held contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no
may not be lawfully delegated. As we have mentioned, the strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause. Here, the CBA
Labor Code itself vests the Department of Labor and between the parties contained a "no strike, no lockout"
Employment with rulemaking powers in the enforcement provision that enjoined both the Union and the Company from
whereof. resorting to the use of economic weapons available to them
The petitioner's reliance on the Constitutional guaranty of under the law and to instead take recourse to voluntary
worker participation "in policy and decision-making processes arbitration in settling their disputes. No law or public policy
affecting their rights and benefits" is not well-taken. The right prohibits the Union and the Company from mutually waiving
granted by this provision, again, must submit to the demands the strike and lockout maces available to them to give way to
and necessities of the State's power of regulation. Lastly, the voluntary arbitration.
non-impairment clause of the Constitution, invoked by the Since the Union‘s strike has been declared illegal, the Union
petitioner, must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the officers can, in accordance with law be terminated from
Government. Freedom of contract and enterprise, like all other employment for their actions. They cannot be shielded from
freedoms, is not free from restrictions, more so in this the coverage of Article 264 of the Labor Code since the Union
jurisdiction, where laissez faire has never been fully accepted appointed them as such and placed them in positions of
as a controlling economic way of life. leadership and power over the men in their respective work
units.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. No costs. Accordingly, the impleaded Union members‘ termination are
justified as the grounds for termination under Article 264 are
C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., Petitioner, based on prohibited acts that employees could commit during
vs. a strike.
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 179220 RULING:
2
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
St. MARY'S ACADEMY of Dipolog City, Petitioner, bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the
vs. working class on the humane justification that those with less
TERESITA PALACIO, MARIGEN CALIBOD, LEVIE privilege in life should have more in law."
LAQUIO, ELAINE MARIE SANTANDER, ELIZA SAILE,
AND MA. DOLORES MONTEDERAMOS, Respondents. RULING:
G.R. No. 164913. September 8, 2010
WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The Decision
DEL CASTILLO, J.: of the Court of Appeals dated September 24, 2003 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 67691 finding respondents Teresita Palacio, Marigen
FACTS: Calibod, Levie Laquio, Elaine Marie Santander and Ma. Dolores
Montederamos to have been illegally dismissed and awarding
Petitioner hired respondents as classroom teachers them separation pay and limited backwages is AFFIRMED. As
and as guidance counselor. In separate letters, however, regards respondent Eliza Saile, we find her termination valid
petitioner informed them that their re-application for school and legal. Consequently, the awards of separation pay and
year 2000-2001 could not be accepted because they failed to limited backwages in her favor are DELETED.
pass the Licensure Examination for Teachers. According to SO ORDERED.
petitioner, as non-board passers, respondents could not MATERNITY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, represented by
continue practicing their teaching profession pursuant to the ANTERA L. DORADO, President, petitioner,
DECS Memorandum No. 10, S. 1998 which requires incumbent vs.
teachers to register as professional teachers pursuant to THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND THE
Section 27 of RA No. 7836, otherwise known as the Philippine REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF LABOR, REGION
Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994. X, respondents.
Respondents filed a complaint contesting their
termination as highly irregular and premature. They admitted G.R. No. 78909. June 30, 1989
that they are indeed non-board passers, however, they also
argued that their security of tenure could not simply be MEDIALDEA, J.:
trampled upon for their failure to register with the PRC or to
pass the LET prior to the deadline set by RA 7836. Further, as FACTS:
the aforesaid law provides for exceptions to the taking of
examination, they opined that their outright dismissal was Petitioner is a semi-government hospital. Ten employees of the
illegal because some of them possessed civil service eligibilities petitioner employed in different capacities/positions filed a
and special permits to teach. Furthermore, petitioner‘s complaint with the Office of the Regional Director of Labor and
retention and acceptance of other teachers who do not also Employment for underpayment of their salaries and ECOLAS.
possess the required eligibility showed evident bad faith in The Regional Director directed two of his Labor Standard and
terminating respondents. Welfare Officers to inspect the records of the petitioner to
Petitioner insists that it has the right to terminate ascertain the truth of the allegations in the complaints. Based
respondents‘ services as early as March 2000 without waiting on this inspection report and recommendation, the Regional
for the September 19, 2000 deadline set by law for Director issued an Order directing the payment representing
respondents to register as professional teachers due to the underpayment of wages and ECOLAs to all the petitioner's
need to fix the school organization prior to the applicable employees. The Secretary of Labor affirmed the said decision.
school year. Petitioner justifies respondents‘ termination by Petitioner contended that based on the rulings in the Ong vs.
advancing that it would be difficult to hire licensed teachers in Parel and the Zambales Base Metals, Inc. vs. The Minister of
the middle of the school year as respondents‘ replacements. Labor cases, a Regional Director is precluded from adjudicating
The Labor Arbiter adjudged petitioner guilty of illegal money claims on the ground that this is an exclusive function
dismissal because it terminated the services of the respondents of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of the present Code.
prior to the deadline fixed by PRC for the registration of
teachers as professional teachers, in violation of the doctrine ISSUE:
regarding the prospective application of laws. NLRC and the CA
both affirmed said decision. Whether or not the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the
case and if so, the extent of coverage of any award that should
ISSUE: be forthcoming, arising from his visitorial and enforcement
powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code.
Whether respondents‘ premature termination on the ground of
failure to pass the LET violative of their right to security of RATIO:
tenure.
Yes. This is a labor standards case, and is governed by Art.
RATIO: 128-b of the Labor Code, as amended by E.O. No. 111. Under
the present rules, a Regional Director exercises both visitorial
Yes. Pursuant to RA 7836, the PRC formulated certain rules and enforcement power over labor standards cases, and is
and regulations relative to the registration of teachers and therefore empowered to adjudicate money
their continued practice of the teaching profession. Specific claims, provided there still exists an employer-employee
periods and deadlines were fixed within which incumbent relationship, and the findings of the regional office is not
teachers must register as professional teachers in consonance contested by the employer concerned.
with the essential purpose of the law in promoting good quality The Regional Director exercised visitorial rights only under then
education by ensuring that those who practice the teaching Article 127 of the Code. With the promulgation of PD 850,
profession are duly licensed and are registered as professional Regional Directors were given enforcement powers, in
teachers. Clearly, respondents, in the case at bar, had until addition to visitorial powers. EO 111 authorizes a Regional
September 19, 2000 to comply with the mandatory Director to order compliance by an employer with labor
requirement to register as professional teachers. standards provisions of the Labor Code and other legislation.
It is incumbent upon this Court to afford full protection to Social justice legislation, to be truly meaningful and rewarding
labor. Thus, while we take cognizance of the employer‘s right to our workers, must not be hampered in its application by
to protect its interest, the same should be exercised in a long-winded arbitration and litigation. Rights must be asserted
manner which does not infringe on the workers‘ right to and benefits received with the least inconvenience. Labor laws
security of tenure. "Under the policy of social justice, the law are meant to promote, not defeat, social justice.
3
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
RULING: allowed, the workingmen will suffer great injustice for they will
necessarily be at the mercy of their employer. That could not
ACCORDINGLY, this petition should be dismissed, as it is have been the intendment of the pertinent provision of the
hereby DISMISSED, as regards all persons still employed in the CBA, much less the benevolent policy underlying our labor
Hospital at the time of the filing of the complaint, but laws.
GRANTED as regards those employees no longer employed at It is a fact that the sympathy of the Court is on the
that time. side of the laboring classes, not only because the Constitution
SO ORDERED. imposes such sympathy, but because of the one-sided relation
between labor and capital. The constitutional mandate for the
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, promotion of labor is as explicit as it is demanding. The
vs. purpose is to place the workingman on an equal plane with
ALBERTO SANTOS, JR., HOUDIEL MAGADIA, GILBERT management — with all its power and influence — in
ANTONIO, REGINO DURAN, PHILIPPINE AIRLINES negotiating for the advancement of his interests and the
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, and THE NATIONAL LABOR defense of his rights. Under the policy of social justice, the law
RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents. bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the
working class on the humane justification that those with less
G.R. No. 77875 February 4, 1993 privileges in life should have more privileges in law.
4
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
salaries and other emoluments he is entitled to under his fixed- the clause violates not just petitioner's right to equal
period employment contract. protection, but also her right to substantive due process under
The OSG emphasizes that OFWs and local workers differ in Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.
terms of the nature of their employment, such that their rights
to monetary benefits must necessarily be treated differently. RULING:
Hence, the OSG posits that there are rights and privileges
exclusive to local workers, but not available to OFWs; that WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Petition. The
these peculiarities make for a reasonable and valid basis for subject clause "or for three months for every year of the
the differentiated treatment under the subject clause of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in the 5th paragraph of
money claims of OFWs who are illegally dismissed. Thus, the Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042
provision does not violate the equal protection clause nor is DECLAREDUNCONSTITUTIONAL; and the December 8, 2004
Section 18, Article II of the Constitution. Lastly, the OSG Decision and April 1, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
defends the rationale behind the subject clause as a police are MODIFIED to the effect that petitioner is AWARDED his
power measure adopted to mitigate the solidary liability of salaries for the entire unexpired portion of his employment
placement agencies for this "redounds to the benefit of the contract consisting of nine months and 23 days computed at
migrant workers whose welfare the government seeks to the rate of US$1,400.00 per month.
promote. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ISSUE:
ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO TEODORO,
Whether the last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10, manager and propietor, and
R.A. No. 8042 is unconstitutional. NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD, petitioners,
vs.
RATIO: THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., respondents.
No. Petitioner's claim that the subject clause unduly
interferes with the stipulations in his contract on the term of
G.R. No. L-46496 February 27, 1940
his employment and the fixed salary package he will receive is
not tenable. The subject clause may not be declared
unconstitutional on the ground that it impinges on the LAUREL, J.:
impairment clause, for the law was enacted in the exercise of
the police power of the State to regulate a business, profession FACTS:
or calling with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for
the dignity and well-being of OFWs wherever they may be Ang Tibay was a manufacturer of rubber slippers. There was a
employed. Police power legislations adopted by the State to shortage of leather soles, and it was necessary to temporarily
promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order, lay off members of the National Labor Union. According to the
safety, and general welfare of the people are generally Union however, this was merely a scheme to systematically
applicable not only to future contracts but even to those terminate the employees from work, and that the shortage of
already in existence, for all private contracts must yield to the
soles is unsupported. It claims that Ang Tibay is guilty of
superior and legitimate measures taken by the State to
unjust labor practice because the owner, Teodoro, is
promote public welfare.
discriminating against the National Labor Union, and unjustly
As to the issue of substantial distinction, to be valid,
the classification must comply with these requirements: 1) it is favoring the National Workers Brotherhood, which was
based on substantial distinctions; 2) it is germane to the allegedly sympathetic to the employer. The Court of Industrial
purposes of the law; 3) it is not limited to existing conditions Relation decided the case and elevated it to the Supreme
only; and 4) it applies equally to all members of the class. Court, but a motion for new trial was raised by the NLU. But
Under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, a worker the Ang Tibay filed a motion for opposing the said motion.
dismissed from overseas employment without just, valid or
authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the unexpired The motion for new trial was raised because according to NLU,
portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for there are documents that are so inaccessible to them that even
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. The with the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected
subject clause classifies OFWs into two categories. The first to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of
category includes OFWs with fixed-period employment
Industrial Relations. That these documents, which NLU have
contracts of less than one year; in case of illegal dismissal,
now attached as exhibits are of such far-reaching importance
they are entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired
portion of their contract. The second category consists of and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the
OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts of one year or modification and reversal of the judgment rendered therein.
more; in case of illegal dismissal, they are entitled to monetary
award equivalent to only 3 months of the unexpired portion of ISSUE:
their contracts.
Viewed in that light, the subject clause creates a sub- Whether or not the Union was denied due process by the CIR
layer of discrimination among OFWs whose contract periods
are for more than one year: those who are illegally dismissed RATIO DECIDENDI:
with less than one year left in their contracts shall be entitled
to their salaries for the entire unexpired portion thereof, while To begin with the issue before us is to realize the functions of
those who are illegally dismissed with one year or more the CIR. The CIR is a special court whose functions are
remaining in their contracts shall be covered by the subject
specifically stated in the law of its creation which is the
clause, and their monetary benefits limited to their salaries for
Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an administrative
three months only. In fine, the Government has failed to
discharge its burden of proving the existence of a compelling board than a part of the integrated judicial system of the
state interest that would justify the perpetuation of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the
discrimination against OFWs under the subject clause. The government. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially
subject clause does not state or imply any definitive passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and
governmental purpose; and it is for that precise reason that deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties
5
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
litigant, the function of the CIR, as will appear from perusal of FEDERICO M. LEDESMA, JR., Petitioner,
its organic law is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not vs.
only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC-
determination of disputes between employers and employees SECOND DIVISION) HONS. RAUL T. AQUINO,
but its functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. It VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY and ANGELITA A. GACUTAN
has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, ARE THE COMMISSIONERS, PHILIPPINE NAUTICAL
investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter TRAINING INC., ATTY. HERNANI FABIA, RICKY TY,
controversy or disputes arising between, and/ or affecting PABLO MANOLO, C. DE LEON and TREENA CUEVA,
employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and Respondents.
tenants or farm-laborers, and regulates the relations between
them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of CA G.R. No. 174585 October 19, 2007
103.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
SC had the occasion to point out that the CIR is not narrowly
constrained by technical rules of procedure, and equity and FACTS:
substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities
or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of On 4 December 1998, petitioner was employed as a
legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it bus/service driver by the private respondent on probationary
may deem just and equitable. basis, as evidenced by his appointment. As such, he was
required to report at private respondent‘s training site in
The fact, however, that the CIR may be said to be free from Dasmariñas, Cavite, under the direct supervision of its site
rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that administrator, Pablo Manolo de Leon (de Leon). On 11
it can in justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or November 2000, petitioner filed a complaint against de Leon
disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due for allegedly abusing his authority as site administrator by
process in trials and investigations of an administrative using the private respondent‘s vehicles and other facilities for
character. There are cardinal primary rights which must be personal ends. In the same complaint, petitioner also accused
respected even in proceedings of this character: de Leon of immoral conduct allegedly carried out within the
private respondent‘s premises.
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present
one's cause and submit evidence in support thereof; On 27 November 2000, de Leon filed a written report against
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; the petitioner addressed to private respondent‘s Vice-President
(3) The decision must have something to support itself; for Administration, Ricky Ty (Ty), citing his suspected drug
(4) The evidence must be substantial; use.
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at
the hearing; or at least contained in the record and disclosed In view of de Leon‘s report, private respondent‘s Human
to the parties affected; Resource Manager, Trina Cueva (HR Manager Cueva), on 29
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its November 2000, served a copy of a Notice to petitioner
own independent consideration of the law and facts of the requiring him to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; action should be imposed on him.
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions,
render its decision in such manner that the parties to the On 3 December 2000, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
proceeding can know the various Issue involved, and the dismissal against private respondent before the Labor Arbiter.
reason for the decision rendered. In his Position Paper,7 petitioner averred that in view of the
complaint he filed against de Leon for his abusive conduct as
RULING: site administrator, the latter retaliated by falsely accusing
petitioner as a drug user. VP for Administration Ty, however,
Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should be and the same instead of verifying the veracity of de Leon‘s report, readily
is hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall be believed his allegations and together with HR Manager Cueva,
remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with instruction verbally dismissed petitioner from service on 29 November
that it reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be 2000.
relevant and otherwise proceed in accordance with the
requirements set forth hereinabove. So ordered. For its part, private respondent countered that petitioner was
never dismissed from employment but merely served a Notice
to Explain why no disciplinary action should be filed against
him in view of his superior‘s report that he was suspected of
using illegal drugs. Instead of filing an answer to the said
notice, however, petitioner prematurely lodged a complaint for
illegal dismissal against private respondent before the Labor
Arbiter.
ISSUE:
6
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
7
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
the State to afford maximum aid and protection to labor. particular reason, the employee should file the leave request at
Therefore, to require the petitioner to show the actual causes least thirty (30) days prior to the start of the planned leave
or factors which led to the decendent's rectal malignancy period.
would not be consistent with this liberal interpretation. It is of
universal acceptance that practically all kinds of cancer belong Because of the impending May 1998 elections and based on
to the class of clinical diseases whose exact etiology, cause or his immediate recollection of the policy at that time, Dante
origin, is unknown. It is in this regard that the evidence Luzon, Assistant Station Manager of DYAB issued the following
submitted by the petitioner deserves serious consideration. memorandum:
3. TO PAY PETITIONER THE SUM OF SEVEN HUNDRED The services rendered by the concerned employee/talent to
(P700.00) PESOS AS FUNERAL EXPENSES; AND this company will then be temporarily suspended for the entire
campaign/election period.
4. TO PAY THE PETITIONER ATTORNEY'S FEES
EQUIVALENT TO TEN (10%) PERCENT OF THE DEATH For strict compliance.
BENEFITS.
After the issuance of the March 25, 1998 Memorandum,
SO ORDERED. Ymbong got in touch with Luzon. Luzon claims that Ymbong
approached him and told him that he would leave radio for a
ERNESTO G. YMBONG, Petitioner, couple of months because he will campaign for the
vs. administration ticket. It was only after the elections that they
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, VENERANDA found out that Ymbong actually ran for public office himself at
SY AND DANTE LUZON, Respondents. the eleventh hour. Ymbong, on the other hand, claims that in
G.R. No. 184885 March 7, 2012 accordance with the March 25, 1998 Memorandum, he
informed Luzon through a letter that he would take a few
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: months leave of absence from March 8, 1998 to May 18, 1998
since he was running for councilor of Lapu-Lapu City.
FACTS:
As regards Patalinghug, Patalinghug approached Luzon and
Petitioner Ernesto G. Ymbong started working for ABS-CBN advised him that he will run as councilor for Naga, Cebu.
Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) in 1993 at its regional According to Luzon, he clarified to Patalinghug that he will be
station in Cebu as a television talent, co-anchoring Hoy Gising considered resigned and not just on leave once he files a
and TV Patrol Cebu. His stint in ABS-CBN later extended to certificate of candidacy.
radio when ABS-CBN Cebu launched its AM station DYAB in
1995 where he worked as drama and voice talent, spinner, Later, Ymbong and Patalinghug both tried to come back to
scriptwriter and public affairs program anchor. ABS-CBN Cebu. According to Luzon, he informed them that
they cannot work there anymore because of company policy.
Like Ymbong, Leandro Patalinghug also worked for ABS-CBN This was stressed even in subsequent meetings and they were
Cebu. Starting 1995, he worked as talent, director and told that the company was not allowing any exceptions. ABS-
scriptwriter for various radio programs aired over DYAB. CBN, however, agreed out of pure liberality to give them a
chance to wind up their participation in the radio drama,
On January 1, 1996, the ABS-CBN Head Office in Manila issued Nagbabagang Langit, since it was rating well and to avoid an
Policy No. HR-ER-016 or the ―Policy on Employees Seeking abrupt ending. The agreed winding-up, however, dragged on
Public Office.‖ The pertinent portions read: for so long prompting Luzon to issue to Ymbong the
memorandum dated September 14, 1998 automatically
1. Any employee who intends to run for any public terminating them.
office position, must file his/her letter of resignation, at least
thirty (30) days prior to the official filing of the certificate of ISSUE:
candidacy either for national or local election.
1. whether Policy No. HR-ER-016 is valid
3. Further, any employee who intends to join a political
group/party or even with no political affiliation but who intends 2. whether the March 25, 1998 Memorandum issued by Luzon
to openly and aggressively campaign for a candidate or group superseded Policy No. HR-ER-016
of candidates (e.g. publicly speaking/endorsing candidate,
recruiting campaign workers, etc.) must file a request for leave 3. whether Ymbong, by seeking an elective post, is deemed to
of absence subject to management‘s approval. For this have resigned and not dismissed by ABS-CBN.
8
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
We have consistently held that so long as a company‘s We find no merit in Ymbong‘s argument that ―[his] automatic
management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the termination x x x was a blatant [disregard] of [his] right to due
advancement of the employer‘s interest and not for the process‖ as he was ―never asked to explain why he did not
purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the tender his resignation before he ran for public office as
employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this mandated by [the subject company policy].‖ Ymbong‘s overt
Court will uphold them. In the instant case, ABS-CBN validly act of running for councilor of Lapu-Lapu City is tantamount to
justified the implementation of Policy No. HR-ER-016. It is well resignation on his part. He was separated from ABS-CBN not
within its rights to ensure that it maintains its objectivity and because he was dismissed but because he resigned. Since
credibility and freeing itself from any appearance of impartiality there was no termination to speak of, the requirement of due
so that the confidence of the viewing and listening public in it process in dismissal cases cannot be applied to Ymbong.
will not be in any way eroded. Even as the law is solicitous of Thus, ABS-CBN is not duty-bound to ask him to explain why he
the welfare of the employees, it must also protect the right of did not tender his resignation before he ran for public office as
an employer to exercise what are clearly management mandated by the subject company policy.
prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its own
business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied. Ruling:
It is worth noting that such exercise of management WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED
prerogative has earned a stamp of approval from no less than for lack of merit.
our Congress itself when on February 12, 2001, it enacted
Republic Act No. 9006, otherwise known as the ―Fair Election With costs against petitioner.
Act.‖ Section 6.6 thereof reads:
SO ORDERED.
6.6. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer,
reporter, on-air correspondent or personality who is a DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO and
candidate for any elective public office or is a campaign PEDRO A. TECSON, petitioners,
volunteer for or employed or retained in any capacity by any vs.
candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned, if so GLAXO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.
required by their employer, or shall take a leave of absence G.R. No. 162994 September 17, 2004
from his/her work as such during the campaign period:
Provided, That any media practitioner who is an official of a TINGA, J.:
political party or a member of the campaign staff of a
candidate or political party shall not use his/her time or space FACTS:
to favor any candidate or political party. [Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.] Tecson was hired by Glaxo as a medical representative on Oct.
24, 1995. Contract of employment signed by Tecson stipulates,
2.The CA correctly ruled that though Luzon, as Assistant among others, that he agrees to study and abide by the
Station Manager for Radio of ABS-CBN, has policy-making existing company rules; to disclose to management any
powers in relation to his principal task of administering the existing future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-
network‘s radio station in the Cebu region, the exercise of such employees or employees with competing drug companies and
power should be in accord with the general rules and should management find that such relationship poses a
regulations imposed by the ABS-CBN Head Office to its prossible conflict of interest, to resign from the company.
employees. Clearly, the March 25, 1998 Memorandum issued Company's Code of Employee Conduct provides the same with
by Luzon which only requires employees to go on leave if they stipulation that management may transfer the employee to
intend to run for any elective position is in absolute another department in a non-counterchecking position or
contradiction with Policy No. HR-ER-016 issued by the ABS- preparation for employment outside of the company after 6
CBN Head Office in Manila which requires the resignation, not months.
9
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
10
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
RULING:
Before the Court of Appeals, respondent sought the annulment
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. of the Commissions Resolution on the ground that they were
The Decision dated October 11, 2007 and Resolution dated rendered with grave abuse of discretion and/or without or in
February 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. excess of jurisdiction.
98224 are AFFIRMED
The Court of Appeals found for the respondent and reversed
MANSION PRINTING CENTER and CLEMENT CHENG, the findings of the Commission.
Petitioners,
vs. ISSUE:
DIOSDADO BITARA, JR. Respondent.
G.R. No. 168120 January 25, 2012 Whether or not respondent is illegally dismissed?
Petitioners aver that the timely delivery of the products to the The imputed absence and tardiness of the complainant are
clients is one of the foremost considerations material to the documented. He faltered on his attendance 38 times of the 66
operation of the business.It being so, they closely monitored working days. His last absences on 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16
the attendance of respondent. They noted his habitual March 2000 were undertaken without even notice/permission
tardiness and absenteeism. from management. These attendance delinquencies may be
characterized as habitual and are sufficient justifications to
Thus, petitioners issued a Memorandumrequiring respondent terminate the complainants employment.
to submit a written explanation why no administrative sanction
should be imposed on him for his habitual tardiness. On this score,Valiao v. Court of Appealsis instructive:
Despite respondents undertaking to report on time, however, xxx It bears stressing that petitioners absences and tardiness
he continued to disregard attendance policies. were not isolated incidents but manifested a pattern of
habituality. xxx The totality of infractions or the number of
Consequently, Davis Cheng, General Manager of the company violations committed during the period of employment shall be
and son of petitioner Cheng, issued another considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an
Memorandum(Notice to Explain) requiring respondent to erring employee. The offenses committed by him should not
explain why his services should not be terminated. He be taken singly and separately but in their totality. Fitness for
personally handed the Notice to Explain to respondent but the continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight
latter, after reading the directive, refused to acknowledge little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct, and ability
receipt thereof.He did not submit any explanation and, separate and independent of each other.
thereafter, never reported for work.
InValiao,we definedgross negligenceas want of care in the
Davis Cheng personally served another Memorandum(Notice of performance of ones dutiesandhabitual neglectas repeated
Termination) upon him informing him that the company found failure to perform ones duties for a period of time, depending
him grossly negligent of his duties, for which reason, his upon the circumstances.51 These are not overly technical
services were terminated. terms, which, in the first place, are expressly sanctioned by the
Labor Code of the Philippines, to wit:
On even date, respondent met with the management ART. 282.Termination by employer.- An employer may
requesting for reconsideration of his termination from the terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
service. However, after hearing his position, the management (a) xxx
decided to implement the Memorandum. Nevertheless, the (b)Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
management, out of generosity, offered respondent financial xxx
assistance in the amount ofP6,110.00 equivalent to his one Clearly, even in the absence of a written company rule defining
month salary. Respondent demanded that he be given the gross and habitual neglect of duties, respondents omissions
amount equivalent to two (2) months salary but the qualify as such warranting his dismissal from the service.
management declined as it believed it would, in effect, reward
respondent for being negligent of his duties. We cannot simply tolerate injustice to employers if only to
protect the welfare of undeserving employees. As aptly put by
Respondent filed a complaintfor illegal dismissal against the then Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing:
petitioners before the Labor Arbiter.
Needless to say, so irresponsible an employee like petitioner
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. does not deserve a place in the workplace, and it is within the
managements prerogative xxx to terminate his employment.
On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, the Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it
findings of the Labor Arbiter was AFFIRMEDen toto. must also protect the rights of an employer to exercise what
11
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
are clearly management prerogatives. As long as the dismissal, non-payment of salaries and other benefits with
companys exercise of those rights and prerogative is in good prayer for moral and exemplary damages against SMART. She
faith to advance its interest and not for the purpose of claimed that abolishing CSMG and, consequently, terminating
defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the her employment was illegal for it violated her right tosecurity
laws or valid agreements, such exercise will be upheld. of tenure.
ISSUE:
Procedural due process entails compliance with the two-notice
rule in dismissing an employee, to wit: (1) the employer must
Whether the dismissal of Astorga be valid or illegal.
inform the employee of the specific acts or omissions for which
his dismissal is sought; and (2) after the employee has been RATIO DECIDENDI:
given the opportunity to be heard, the employer must inform
him of the decision to terminate his employment. Astorga is declared validly dismissed. Astorga was terminated
due to redundancy, which is one of the authorized causes for
RULING: the dismissal of an employee. Redundancy in an employer‘s
personnel force necessarily or even ordinarily refers to
WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated 29 June 2001 and the duplication of work. The characterization of an employee‘s
Order dated 21 February 2002 of the National Labor Relations services as superfluous or no longer necessary and, therefore,
Commission in NLRC NCR CASE No. 027871-01 are hereby properly terminable, is an exercise of business judgment on
the part of the employer. An employer is not precluded from
REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that petitioners are
adopting a new policy conducive to a more economical and
ORDERED to pay respondent the money equivalent of the five-
effective management even if it is not experiencing economic
day service incentive leave for every year of service covering
reverses. Neither does the law require that the employer
his employment period from August 1988 to 1 April 2000. This should suffer financial losses before he can terminate the
case is hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the services of the employee on the ground of redundancy. But
computation of respondent‘s service incentive leave pay. while tilting the scales of justice in favor of workers, the
fundamental law also guarantees the right of the employer to
SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. REGINA ASTORGA - reasonable returns for his investment.
G.R. NO. 148132
SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. REGINA ASTORGA- In this light, we must acknowledge the prerogative of the
G.R. NO. 151079 employer to adopt such measures as will promote greater
REGINA ASTORGA V. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., efficiency, reduce overhead costs and enhance prospects of
ET AL. - G.R. NO. 151372 economic gains, albeit always within the framework of existing
G.R. No. 14813 January 28, 2008 laws. However, SMART failed to comply with the mandated
one (1) month notice prior to termination. The record is clear
PONENTE: Nachura that Astorga received the notice of termination only on March
16, 1998 or less than a month prior to its effectively on April 3,
FACTS: 1998. Likewise, the Department of Labor and Employment was
notified of the redundancy program only on March 6,
Regina M. Astorga (Astorga) was employed by respondent 1998.Article 283 of the Labor Code clearly provides: Art. 283.
Smart Communications, Incorporated (SMART) on May 8, 1997 Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel.
as District Sales Manager of the Corporate Sales Marketing
Group/ Fixed Services Division (CSMG/FSD). As District Sales The employer may also terminate the employment of any
Manager, Astorga enjoyed additional benefits, namely, annual employee due to the installation of labor saving devices,
performance incentive equivalent to 30% of her annual gross redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or
salary, a group life and hospitalization insurance coverage, and cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking
a car plan in the amount of P455,000.00. On May 18, 1998, unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the
SMART sent a letter to Astorga demanding that she pay the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the
current market value of the Honda Civic Sedan which was workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least
given to her under the company‘s car plan program, or to one (1) month before the intended date thereof.
surrender the same to the company for proper disposition.
Astorga, however, failed and refused to do either, thus RULING:
prompting SMART to file a suit for replevin with the Regional
Trial Court of Makati (RTC) on August 10, 1998. In February WHEREFORE, the petition of SMART docketed as G.R. No.
1998, SMART launched an organizational realignment to 148132 is GRANTED. The February 28, 2000 Decision and the
achieve more efficient operations. This was made known to the May 7, 2001 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP.
employees on February 27, 1998. Part of the reorganization No. 53831 are SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Makati
was the outsourcing of the marketing and sales force. Thus, City, Branch 57 is DIRECTED to proceed with the trial of Civil
SMART entered into a joint venture agreement with NTT of Case No. 98-1936 and render its Decision with reasonable
Japan, and formed SMART-NTT Multimedia, Incorporated dispatch.
(SNMI). Since SNMI was formed to do the sales and marketing
work, SMART abolished the CSMG/FSD, Astorga‘s division. On the other hand, the petitions of SMART and Astorga
SNMI agreed to absorb the CSMG personnel who would be docketed as G.R. Nos. 151079 and 151372 are DENIED. The
recommended by SMART.SMART then conducted a June 11, 2001 Decision and the December 18, 2001 Resolution
performance evaluation of CSMG personnel and those who in CA-G.R. SP. No. 57065,
garnered the highest ratings were favorably recommended to are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Astorga is declared
SNMI. Astorga landed last in the performance evaluation, thus, validly dismissed. However, SMART is ordered to pay
she was not recommended by SMART. SMART offered her a Astorga P50,000.00 as indemnity for its non-compliance with
supervisory position in the Customer Care Dept but she procedural due process, her separation pay equivalent to one
refused the offer. On March 3, 1998, SMART issued a (1) month pay, and her salary from February 15, 1998 until the
memorandum advising Astorga of the termination of her effective date of her termination on April 3, 1998. The award
employment on ground of redundancy, effective April 3, 1998. of backwages is DELETED for lack of basis.
Astorga received it on March 16, 1998. The termination of her
employment prompted Astorga to file a Complaint for illegal
12
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
STAR PAPER CORPORATION, JOSEPHINE ONGSITCO & employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential
SEBASTIAN CHUA, Petitioners, versus RONALDO D. operation of the job involved; and, (2) that there is a factual
SIMBOL, WILFREDA N. COMIA & LORNA E. ESTRELLA, basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting
Respondents. the qualification would be unable to properly perform the
G.R. No.: 164774 April 12, 2006 duties of the job.
Respondents later filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, The SC does not find a reasonable business necessity in the
constructive dismissal, separation pay and attorney‘s fees. case at bar.
They averred that the aforementioned company policy is illegal
and contravenes Article 136 of the Labor Code. Petitioners‘ sole contention that ―the company did not just
want to have two (2) or more of its employees related
ISSUE: between the third degree by affinity and/or consanguinity‖ is
lame. That the second paragraph was meant to give teeth to
Whether or not the 1995 Policy/Regulation of the company is the first paragraph of the questioned rule is evidently not the
violative of the Constitutional rights towards marriage and the valid reasonable business necessity required by the law.
family of employees and of article 136 of the Labor Code.
It is significant to note that in the case at bar, respondents
RATIO DECIDENDI: were hired after they were found fit for the job, but were
asked to resign when they married a co-employee. Petitioners
The Supreme Court held that The 1987 Constitution under failed to show how the marriage of Simbol, then a Sheeting
Article II, Section 18; Article XIII, Section 3 state our policy Machine Operator, to Alma Dayrit, then an employee of the
towards the protection of labor under the following provisions. Repacking Section, could be detrimental to its business
The Civil Code likewise protects labor with the following operations. Neither did petitioners explain how this detriment
provisions such as articles 1700 and 1702. will happen in the case of Wilfreda Comia, then a Production
Helper in the Selecting Department, who married Howard
The Labor Code is the most comprehensive piece of legislation Comia, then a helper in the cutter-machine. The policy is
protecting labor. The case at bar involves Article 136 of the premised on the mere fear that employees married to each
Labor Code which provides: other will be less efficient. If we uphold the questioned rule
without valid justification, the employer can create policies
Art. 136. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a based on an unproven presumption of a perceived danger at
condition of employment or continuation of employment that a the expense of an employee‘s right to security of tenure.
woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate
expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman Petitioners contend that their policy will apply only when one
employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to employee marries a co-employee, but they are free to marry
actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice persons other than co-employees. The questioned policy may
a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage. not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates
a disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact
In denying the contention of the petitioner company, the SC theory, the only way it could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing
applied the two factors to justify a bona fide occupational that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit
qualification: disproportionate, effect. The failure of petitioners to prove a
legitimate business concern in imposing the questioned policy
Since the finding of a bona fide occupational qualification cannot prejudice the employee‘s right to be free from arbitrary
justifies an employer‘s no-spouse rule, the exception is discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons
interpreted strictly and narrowly. There must be a compelling working together in one company. Decision of the CA affirmed.
business necessity for which no alternative exists other than
the discriminatory practice. To justify a bona fide occupational
qualification, the employer must prove two factors: (1) that the
13
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
ISSUE: Three lost seconds can translate into three lost lives.
Evacuation might slow down just because a wide-bodied cabin
Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed. attendant is blocking the narrow aisles.
14
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
MANILA PAVILION HOTEL, OWNED AND OPERATED BY dismissed Galanida for just cause in accordance with Article
ACESITE (PHILS.) HOTEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, 282(a) of the Labor Code. Galanida is thus not entitled to
versus HENRY DELADA, Respondent. reinstatement or to separation pay. (Emphasis supplied,
G.R. No.: 189947 January 25, 2012 citations omitted).
PONENTE: Sereno It is important to note what the PVA said on Delada‘s defiance
of the transfer order:
FACTS:
In fact, Delada cannot hide under the legal cloak of the
Delada was the Union President of the Manila Pavilion grievance machinery of the CBA or the voluntary arbitration
Supervisors Association at MPH. He was originally assigned as proceedings to disobey a valid order of transfer from the
Head Waiter of Rotisserie, a fine-dining restaurant operated by management of the hotel. While it is true that Delada‘s
petitioner. Pursuant to a supervisory personnel reorganization transfer to Seasons is the subject of the grievance machinery
program, MPH reassigned him as Head Waiter of Seasons in accordance with the provisions of their CBA, Delada is
Coffee Shop, another restaurant operated by petitioner at the expected to comply first with the said lawful directive while
same hotel. Respondent declined the inter-outlet transfer and awaiting the results of the decision in the grievance
instead asked for a grievance meeting on the matter, pursuant proceedings. This issue falls squarely in the case of Allied
to their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). He also Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals x x x.
requested his retention as Head Waiter of Rotisserie while the
grievance procedure was ongoing. Pursuant to Allied Banking, unless the order of MPH is
rendered invalid, there is a presumption of the validity of that
MPH replied and told respondent to report to his new order. Since the PVA eventually ruled that the transfer order
assignment for the time being, without prejudice to the was a valid exercise of management prerogative, we hereby
resolution of the grievance involving the transfer. He reverse the Decision and the Resolution of the CA affirming the
adamantly refused to assume his new post at the Seasons Decision of the PVA in this respect. MPH had the authority to
Coffee Shop and instead continued to report to his previous continue with the administrative proceedings for
assignment at Rotisserie. Thus, MPH sent him several insubordination and willful disobedience against Delada and to
memoranda on various dates, requiring him to explain in impose on him the penalty of suspension. As a consequence,
writing why he should not be penalized for the following petitioner is not liable to pay back wages and other benefits for
offenses: serious misconduct; willful disobedience of the lawful the period corresponding to the penalty of 90-day suspension.
orders of the employer; gross insubordination; gross and
habitual neglect of duties; and willful breach of trust. Despite RULING:
the notices from MPH, Delada persistently rebuffed orders for
him to report to his new assignment. According to him, since WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision and the
the grievance machinery under their CBA had already been Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby MODIFIED. We
initiated, his transfer must be held in abeyance. Thus, on 9 rule that petitioner Manila Pavilion Hotel had the authority to
May 2007, MPH initiated administrative proceedings against continue with the administrative proceedings for
him. insubordination and willful disobedience against Delada and to
impose on him the penalty of suspension. Consequently,
ISSUE: petitioner is not liable to pay back wages and other benefits for
the period corresponding to the penalty of 90-day suspension.
Whether MPH retained the authority to continue with the
administrative case against Delada for insubordination and PRINCE TRANSPORT, INC. and MR. RENATO CLAROS,
willful disobedience of the transfer order. Petitioners, versus DIOSDADO GARCIA, LUISITO
GARCIA, RODANTE ROMERO, REX BARTOLOME,
RATIO DECIDENDI: FELICIANO GASCO, JR., DANILO ROJO, EDGAR
SANFUEGO, AMADO GALANTO, EUTIQUIO LUGTU, JOEL
Accordingly, we rule in this case that MPH did not lose its GRAMATICA, MIEL CERVANTES, TERESITA CABANES,
authority to discipline respondent for his continued refusal to ROE DELA CRUZ, RICHELO BALIDOY, VILMA PORRAS,
report to his new assignment. In relation to this point, we MIGUELITO SALCEDO, CRISTINA GARCIA, MARIO
recall our Decision in Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of NAZARENO, DINDO TORRES, ESMAEL RAMBOYONG,
Appeals. ROBETO*MANO, ROGELIO BAGAWISAN, ARIEL
SNACHEZ, ESTAQULO VILLAREAL, NELSON MONTERO,
In Allied Banking Corporation, employer Allied Bank reassigned GLORIA ORANTE, HARRY TOCA, PABLITO MACASAET
respondent Galanida from its Cebu City branch to its Bacolod and RONALD GARCITA, Respondents.
and Tagbilaran branches. He refused to follow the transfer G.R. No.: 167291 January 12, 2011
order and instead filed a Complaint before the Labor Arbiter for
constructive dismissal. While the case was pending, Allied Bank PONENTE: Peralta
insisted that he report to his new assignment. When he
continued to refuse, it directed him to explain in writing why FACTS:
no disciplinary action should be meted out to him. Due to his
continued refusal to report to his new assignment, Allied Bank Respondents were employees of Prince Transport, Inc. (PTI), a
eventually terminated his services. When the issue of whether company engaged in the business of transporting passengers
he could validly refuse to obey the transfer orders was brought by land; respondents were hired either as drivers, conductors,
before this Court, we ruled thus: mechanics or inspectors, except for respondent Diosdado
Garcia (Garcia), who was assigned as Operations Manager. In
The refusal to obey a valid transfer order constitutes willful addition to their regular monthly income, respondents also
disobedience of a lawful order of an employer. Employees may received commissions equivalent to 8 to 10% of their
object to, negotiate and seek redress against employers for wages.The said commissions were reduced to 7 to 9%; this led
rules or orders that they regard as unjust or illegal. However, respondents and other employees of PTI to hold a series of
until and unless these rules or orders are declared illegal or meetings to discuss the protection of their interests as
improper by competent authority, the employees ignore or employees; these meetings led petitioner Renato Claros, who
disobey them at their peril. For Galanida‘s continued refusal to is the president of PTI, to suspect that respondents are about
obey Allied Bank's transfer orders, we hold that the bank to form a union; he made known to Garcia his objection to the
15
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
16
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
allowances, holiday pay, and leave benefits, which are resigned from the service effective immediately, for loss of
provided by the Labor Code. confidence and for acts inimical to the interest of the company.
This doctrine was reiterated in the more recent case of Manila Her motion for reconsideration having been denied by the
Banking Corporation v. NLRC: Board, Quijano filed the instant case against PAL for illegal
suspension and illegal dismissal.
Petitioner was not only experiencing a decline in its profits, but
was reeling from tremendous losses triggered by a bank-run The Labor Arbiter dismissed private respondents complaint.
which began in 1983. In such a depressed financial condition, Undeterred, private respondent filed an appeal before the
petitioner cannot be legally compelled to continue paying the NLRC which rendered the assailed Decision vacated and set
same amount of bonuses to its employees. Thus, the aside. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was
conservator was justified in reducing the mid-year and denied by the NLRC.
Christmas bonuses of petitioner‘s employees. To hold
otherwise would be to defeat the reason for the ISSUE:
conservatorship which is to preserve the assets and restore the
viability of the financially precarious bank. Ultimately, it is to Whether or not respondent is illegally dismissed?
the employees‘ advantage that the conservatorship achieve its
purposes for the alternative would be petitioner‘s closure RATIO DECIDENDI:
whereby employees would lose not only their benefits, but
their jobs as well. At the onset, it should be noted that the parties do not dispute
the validity of private respondents dismissal from employment
An employer cannot be forced to distribute bonuses which it for loss of confidence and acts inimical to the interest of the
can no longer afford to pay, a bonus is an amount granted and employer. The assailed September 29, 1995 Decision of the
paid to an employee for his industry and loyalty which NLRC was emphatic in declaring that it was "not prepared to
contributed to the success of the employers business and rule as illegal the preventive suspension and eventual dismissal
made possible the realization of profile. It is an act of from the service of [private respondent]" and rightfully so
generosity and is a management prerogative, given in addition because the last position that private respondent held,
to what is ordinarily received by or strictly due the recipient. Manager-ASAD (Agents Services Accounting Division),
Thus, it is not a demandable and enforceable obligation, undeniably qualifies as a position of trust and confidence.
except when it is made part of the wage, salary or
compensation of the employee. Loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of
employment is premised from the fact that an employee
RULING: concerned holds a position of trust and confidence. This
situation holds where a person is entrusted with confidence on
WHEREFORE, for the reasons above stated, the 30 April 1991 delicate matters, such as the custody, handling, or care and
Decision of public respondent in NLRC-NCR Case No. 02- protection of the employers property. But, in order to
00753-88, entitled Producers Bank Employees Association v. constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of
Producers Bank of the Philippines, and its 18 June 1991 must be "work-related" such as would show the employee
Resolution issued in the same case are hereby SET ASIDE, concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.
with the exception of public respondents ruling on damages.
As a general rule, employers are allowed a wider latitude of
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, versus discretion in terminating the employment of managerial
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AIDA personnel or those who, while not of similar rank, perform
M. QUIJANO, Respondents. functions which by their nature require the employers full trust
and confidence. This must be distinguished from the case of
G.R. No.: 123294 October 20, 2010 ordinary rank and file employees, whose termination on the
basis of these same grounds requires a higher proof of
involvement in the events in question; mere uncorroborated
PONENTE: Leonardo-De Castro assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice.
FACTS: The language of Article 279 of the Labor Code is pregnant with
the implication that a legally dismissed employee is not entitled
An investigating committee chaired by Leslie W. Espino to separation pay, to wit:
formally charged Quijano as Manager-ASAD in connection with
the processing and payment of commission claims to Goldair An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be
Pty. Ltd. wherein PAL overpaid commissions to the latter. entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
Pending further investigation, the Espino Committee placed allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
Quijano under preventive suspension and at the same time equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
required her to submit her answer to the charges. withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Another Administrative charge involving the same Goldair However, in exceptional cases, this Court has granted
anomaly was filed, this time including Committee Chairman separation pay to a legally dismissed employee as an act of
Leslie W. Espino and Committee Member Romeo R. Ines and "social justice" or based on "equity." In both instances, it is
several others, for "gross incompetence and inefficiency, required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct;
negligence, imprudence, mismanagement, dereliction of duty, and (2) does not reflect on the moral character of the
failure to observe and/or implement administrative and employee or would involve moral turpitude. This equitable and
executive policies, and related acts or omissions." Pending the humanitarian principle was first discussed by the Court in the
result of investigation by another committee chaired by Judge landmark case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.
Martin S. Ocampo, the PAL Board of Directors suspended (PLDT) v. National Labor Relations Commission.
respondents.
Serious misconduct as a valid cause for the dismissal of an
The Ocampo Committee having submitted its findings to the employee is defined simply as improper or wrong conduct. It is
PAL Board of Directors, the latter considered respondents a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
17
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and the P600.00 cash benefit and argued that this was in violation
implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. To be of the CBA it executed with the petitioner.
serious within the meaning and intendment of the law, the In support of its claim, respondent Association insisted that it
misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character has been the traditional practice of the company to grant its
and not merely trivial or unimportant. However serious such members Christmas bonuses during the end of the calendar
misconduct, it must, nevertheless, be in connection with the year, each in the amount of P3,000.00 as an expression of
employees work to constitute just cause for his separation. gratitude to the employees for their participation in the
The act complained of must be related to the performance of company‘s continued existence in the market. The bonus was
the employees duties such as would show him to be unfit to either in cash or in the form of company tiles. In 2002, in a
continue working for the employer. On the other hand, moral speech during the Christmas celebration, one of the company‘s
turpitude has been defined as "everything which is done top executives assured the employees of said bonus. However,
contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of the Human Resources Development Manager informed them
baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties that the traditional bonus would not be given as the company‘s
which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, earnings were intended for the payment of its bank loans.
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals." Respondent Association argued that this was in violation of
their CBA.
In the case at bar, the transgressions imputed to private The petitioner averred that the complaint for nonpayment of
respondent have never been firmly established as deliberate the 2002 Christmas bonus had no basis as the same was not a
and willful acts clearly directed at making petitioner lose demandable and enforceable obligation. It argued that the
millions of pesos. At the very most, they can only be giving of extra compensation was based on the company‘s
characterized as unintentional, albeit major, lapses in available resources for a given year and the workers are not
professional judgment. Likewise, the same cannot be described entitled to a bonus if the company does not make profits.
as morally reprehensible actions. Thus, private respondent
may be granted separation pay on the ground of equity which The Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a Decision, declaring that
this Court had defined as "justice outside law, being ethical petitioner is bound to grant each of its workers a Christmas
rather than jural and belonging to the sphere of morals than of bonus of P3,000.00 for the reason that the bonus was given
law. It is grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on prior to the effectivity of the CBA between the parties and that
any sanction of positive law, for equity finds no room for the financial losses of the company is not a sufficient reason to
application where there is law." exempt it from granting the same. It stressed that the CBA is a
binding contract and constitutes the law between the parties.
RULING:
In affirming respondent Associations right to the Christmas
WHEREFORE, the assailed NLRC Decision dated September bonus, the Court of Appeals held:
29, 1995 as well as the Resolution dated November 14, 1995 In the case at bar, it is indubitable that petitioner offered
are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner private respondent a Christmas bonus/gift in 1998 or before
Philippine Airlines, Inc. pay private respondent Aida Quijano the execution of the 1999 CBA which incorporated the said
one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service as benefit as a traditional right of the employees. Hence, the
separation pay on equitable grounds. grant of said bonus to private respondent can be deemed a
practice as the same has not been given only in the 1999 CBA.
LEPANTO CERAMICS, INC., Petitioner, vs. LEPANTO Apparently, this is the reason why petitioner specifically
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Respondent. recognized the grant of a Christmas bonus/gift as a practice or
G.R. No. 180866 March 2, 2010 tradition as stated in the CBA.
18
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
more than just an act of generosity on the part of the suspended respondent from work without pay for 20 days,
petitioner but a contractual obligation it has undertaken. effective October 8, 1990.
All given, business losses are a feeble ground for petitioner to Respondent was absent from May 29 to June 12, 1991. He was
repudiate its obligation under the CBA. The rule is settled that sent a Memorandum reminding him of the July 2, 1990
any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees Memorandum requiring written application prior to a leave of
cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by absence without pay and was directed to report for work on
the employer. The principle of non-diminution of benefits is June 13, 1991 at ten o'clock in the evening lest he be meted a
founded on the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of disciplinary action. Respondent reported for work on even
workers and to promote their welfare and to afford labor full date, and was required to explain in writing why no disciplinary
protection. Hence, absent any proof that petitioner‘s consent action should be taken against him for his unauthorized leave
was vitiated by fraud, mistake or duress, it is presumed that it of absence. In a Memorandum dated June 17, 1991,
entered into the CBA voluntarily and had full knowledge of the respondent explained that his absences were due to the fact
contents thereof and was aware of its commitments under the that his eldest and youngest daughter were sick and had to be
contract. confined at the nearby clinic; and the medical certificate
confirming said confinement was to follow. Further,
The Court is fully aware that implementation to the letter of respondent alleged that he had relayed said message to an
the subject CBA provision may further deplete petitioners officemate, Luis V. Marquez, who unfortunately did not also
resources. Petitioners remedy though lies not in the Courts report for work. As petitioner found respondents explanation
invalidation of the provision but in the parties clarification of insufficient, respondent was suspended without pay for 45
the same in subsequent CBA negotiations. Article 253 of the days effective July 17, 1991.
Labor Code is relevant:
Eight months thereafter, respondent availed of a seven-day
Art. 253. Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a leave of absence and extended such leave to complete his
collective bargaining agreement. - When there is a collective annual vacation leave, which was to end on February 11,
bargaining agreement, the duty to bargain collectively shall 1992. However, respondent failed to report for work from
also mean that neither party shall terminate nor modify such February 11 to February 19, 1992. Petitioner then sent him a
agreement during its lifetime. However, either party can serve Memorandum dated February 19, 1992, directing him to report
a written notice to terminate or modify the agreement at least for duty within 72 hours, otherwise, his services would be
sixty (60) days prior to its expiration date. It shall be the duty terminated for abandonment of work. Respondent reported for
of both parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full duty and was served another Memorandum requiring him to
force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken
agreement during the sixty (60)-day period and/or until a new against him for his unauthorized absences. In his explanation,
agreement is reached by the parties. respondent stated that he incurred said absences because he
had many accounts in the office which were already due and
RULING: demandable and thought of prolonging such payment by
absenting himself. He further stated that he realized that what
WHEREFORE, Premises considered, the petition is DENIED for he did was wrong and only worsened his situation and asked
lack of merit. for another chance. Petitioner found such explanation totally
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 5 April 2006 and unacceptable. Thus, in an Inter-Office Memorandum dated
the Resolution of the same court dated 13 December 2007 in May 29, 1992 addressed to respondent, the latter was
CA-G.R. SP No. 78334 are AFFIRMED. terminated from service effective June 1, 1992 due to his third
unauthorized absence within a three-year period.
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Petitioner, vs. JOEY B. TEVES, Respondent. On March 9, 1993, respondent filed a Complaint for illegal
G.R. No. 143511 November 15, 2010 suspension, illegal dismissal, payment of two Christmas
bonuses and monthly rice subsidy.
FACTS:
Labor Arbiter (LA) Benigno C. Villarente, Jr. rendered his
Respondent was employed by petitioner Philippine Long Decision, declaring that the dismissal of the complainant is
Distance Telephone Company in 1981 as Clerk II until his LEGAL
termination from service on June 1, 1992. Petitioner
terminated respondent through an Inter-Office Memorandum In reversing the LA, the NLRC found that respondent's
dated May 29, 1992 on account of his three (3) unauthorized absences from August 23 to September 3, 1990 was brought
leaves of absence committed within three (3) years in violation to petitioner's attention when respondent called through a
of petitioners rules and regulations. third party that respondent would go on an extended leave.
Moreover, the reason for his prolonged absence, i.e., the
Respondent was absent from August 23 to September 3, 1990 unforeseen complications of his wife's condition after giving
as his wife gave birth on August 25 but was only discharged birth, supported by a medical certificate, was an eventuality
from the hospital on September 2, 1990 due to complications; that needed to be attended to with priority which should have
since they had no household help, he had to attend to his been accorded credence and favorably considered; and that
wife's needs in the hospital, as well as the needs of their four dismissing such explanation and placing respondent under
kids, including bringing them to school. Respondent called up suspension, when his leave of absence was without pay,
through a third party to inform petitioner that he would go on merely exacerbated his family's plight.
an extended leave. Upon his reporting for work on The NLRC found that respondent's failure to verify whether his
September 4, 1990, he wrote petitioner a letter confirming his message for petitioner through a co-employee that his
leave of absence without pay for that period and stating the (respondent) two daughters were sick and confined at a
reasons thereof, with his wife's medical certificate attached. nearby clinic was duly delivered constituted a neglect of duty.
Dissatisfied, petitioner required respondent to submit further However, the NLRC took into consideration respondent's
explanation which the latter did reiterating his previous reason for such absence and stated that certain leniency
explanation. However, in petitioner's Inter-Office Memorandum should have been accorded respondent and that his
dated October 3, 1990, it found respondents explanation to be suspension for 45 days was too harsh for the said offense.
unacceptable and unmeritorious for the latter's failure to call,
notify or request petitioner for such leave; thus, petitioner
19
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
A petition was made to CA which rendered its assailed days would be in order. Hence, the amount equivalent to the
Decision, which affirmed and reiterated the NLRC decision. thirty-day suspension, which respondent should have served
for his absence on February 11 to 19, 1992, should be
ISSUE: deducted from the backwages to be awarded to him.
20
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be respondent although, if one were to be technical, he was still
used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, in its employ. Even so, during the period of indefinite leave, he
working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, was not entitled to receive any salary or to enjoy any other
lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of benefits available to those in the active service.
work. ... (NLU vs. Insular La Yebana Co., 2 SCRA 924;
Under the law then in force the private respondent could have
Every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits. In validly reduced its work force because of its financial reverses
the process, it may adopt or devise means designed towards without the obligation to grant separation pay. This was
that goal. permitted under the original Article 272(a), of the Labor Code,
which was in force at the time. To its credit, however, the
So long as a company's management prerogatives are company voluntarily offered gratuities to those who would
exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's agree to be phased out pursuant to the terms and conditions
interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing of its retrenchment program, in recognition of their loyalty and
the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid to tide them over their own financial difficulties. The Court
agreements, this Court will uphold them (LVN Pictures Workers feels that such compassionate measure deserves
vs. LVN, 35 SCRA 147; Phil. American Embroideries vs. commendation and support but at the same time rules that it
Embroidery and Garment Workers, 26 SCRA 634; Phil. Refining should be available only to those who are qualified therefore.
Co. vs. Garcia, 18 SCRA 110). San Miguel Corporation's offer to We hold that the petitioner is not one of them.
compensate the members of its sales force who will be
adversely affected by the implementation of the CDS by paying While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social
them a so-called "back adjustment commission" to make up for justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be
the commissions they might lose as a result of the CDS proves supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided
the company's good faith and lack of intention to bust their in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights which, as
union. such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of
simple fair play. Out of its concern for those with less
RULING: privileges in life, this Court has inclined more often than not
toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of the employer. Such favoritism, however, has not blinded us to
merit. the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be
dispensed in the light of the established facts and the
MANUEL SOSITO, petitioner, vs. AGUINALDO applicable law and doctrine.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.
G.R. No. L-48926 December 14, 1987 RULING:
The private respondent, through its president, announced a GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
retrenchment program and offered separation pay to
employees in the active service as of June 30, 1976, who FACTS:
would tender their resignations. The petitioner decided to
accept this offer and so submitted his resignation, "to avail Respondent Filipro, Inc. (now Nestle Philippines, Inc.) filed
himself of the gratuity benefits" promised. However, his with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a
resignation was not acted upon and he was never given the petition for declaratory relief seeking a ruling on its rights and
separation pay he expected. obligations respecting claims of its monthly paid employees for
holiday pay.
The petitioner complained to the Department of Labor, where
he was sustained by the labor arbiter. The company was Both Filipro and the Union of Filipino Employees (UFE) agreed
ordered to pay Sosito a sum of P 4,387.50, representing his to submit the case for voluntary arbitration and appointed
salary for six and a half months. respondent Benigno Vivar, Jr. as voluntary arbitrator.
On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, this Arbitrator Vivar rendered a decision directing Filipro to:
decision was reversed and it was held that the retrenchment pay its monthly paid employees holiday pay pursuant to Article
program did not cover the petitioner. 94 of the Code, subject only to the exclusions and limitations
specified in Article 82 and such other legal restrictions as are
ISSUE: provided for in the Code.
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to separation pay Filipro filed a motion for clarification seeking (1) the limitation
under the retrenchment program of the private respondent. of the award to three years, (2) the exclusion of salesmen,
sales representatives, truck drivers, merchandisers and medical
RATIO DECIDENDI: representatives (hereinafter referred to as sales personnel)
from the award of the holiday pay, and (3) deduction from the
It is clear from the memorandum that the offer of separation holiday pay award of overpayment for overtime, night
pay was extended only to those who were in the active service differential, vacation and sick leave benefits due to the use of
of the company. It is equally clear that the petitioner was not 251 divisor.
eligible for the promised gratuity, as he was not actually
working with the company as of the said date. Being on Petitioner UFE answered that the award should be made
indefinite leave, he was not in the active service of the private effective from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code, that
21
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
their sales personnel are not field personnel and are therefore computed from October 23, 1984. In all other respects, the
entitled to holiday pay, and that the use of 251 as divisor is an order of the respondent arbitrator is hereby AFFIRMED.
established employee benefit which cannot be diminished.
INSULAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL, Petitioner,
The respondent arbitrator issued an order declaring that the vs. WATERFRONT HOTEL DAVAO, Respondent.
effectivity of the holiday pay award shall retroact to November G.R. Nos. 174040-41 September 22, 2010
1, 1974, the date of effectivity of the Labor Code. He
adjudged, however, that the company's sales personnel are PERALTA, J.:
field personnel and, as such, are not entitled to holiday pay.
He likewise ruled that with the grant of 10 days' holiday pay, FACTS:
the divisor should be changed from 251 to 261 and ordered
the reimbursement of overpayment for overtime, night Respondent Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao (respondent) sent
differential, vacation and sick leave pay due to the use of 251 the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Davao City,
days as divisor. a Notice of Suspension of Operations notifying the same that it
ISSUES: will suspend its operations for a period of six months due to
severe and serious business losses. In said notice, respondent
1) Whether or not Nestle's sales personnel are entitled to assured the DOLE that if the company could not resume its
holiday pay; and operations within the six-month period, the company would
2) Whether or not, concomitant with the award of holiday pay, pay the affected employees all the benefits legally due to
the divisor should be changed from 251 to 261 days them.
RATIO DECIDENDI: During the period of the suspension, Domy R. Rojas (Rojas),
the President of Davao Insular Hotel Free Employees Union
The respondent arbitrator's order to change the divisor from (DIHFEU-NFL), the recognized labor organization in Waterfront
251 to 261 days would result in a lower daily rate, which is Davao, sent respondent a number of letters asking
violative of the prohibition on non-diminution of benefits found management to reconsider its decision.
in Article 100 of the Labor Code. To maintain the same daily In letters, Rojas intimated that the members of the Union were
rate if the divisor is adjusted to 261 days, then the dividend, determined to keep their jobs and that they believed they too
which represents the employee's annual salary, should had to help respondent.
correspondingly be increased to incorporate the holiday pay.
There is thus no merit in respondent Nestle's claim of After series of negotiations, respondent and DIHFEU-NFL,
overpayment of overtime and night differential pay and sick represented by its President,
and vacation leave benefits, the computation of which are all Reduce the sick leaves and vacation leaves to 15 days/15days.
based on the daily rate, since the daily rate is still the same Emergency leave and birthday off are hereby waived.
before and after the grant of holiday pay. Duty meal allowance is fixed at P30.00 only. No more midnight
snacks and double
Respondent Nestle's invocation of solutio indebiti, or payment Rojas, and Vice-Presidents, Exequiel J. Varela Jr. and Avelino
by mistake, due to its use of 251 days as divisor must fail in C. Bation, Jr., signed a
light of the Labor Code mandate that "all doubts in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) wherein respondent agreed
implementation and interpretation of this Code, including its to re-open the hotel subject to certain concessions offered by
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor DIHFEU-NFL in its Manifesto.
of labor." (Article 4). Moreover, prior to September 1, 1980,
when the company was on a 6-day working schedule, the Accordingly, respondent downsized its manpower structure to
divisor used by the company was 303, indicating that the 10 100 rank-and-file employees as set forth in the terms of the
holidays were likewise not paid. When Filipro shifted to a 5-day MOA. Moreover, as agreed upon in the MOA, respondent also
working schebule on September 1, 1980, it had the chance to prepared a new pay scale.
rectify its error, if ever there was one but did not do so. It is
now too late to allege payment by mistake. The retained employees individually signed a Reconfirmation of
Employment which embodied the new terms and conditions of
The "operative fact" doctrine realizes that in declaring a law or their continued employment, each employee was assisted by
rule null and void, undue harshness and resulting unfairness Rojas who also signed the document.
must be avoided. It is now almost the end of 1991. To require
various companies to reach back to 1975 now and nullify acts ISSUE:
done in good faith is unduly harsh. 1984 is a fairer reckoning
period under the facts of this case. Whether the non-ratification of the MOA in accordance with
Applying the aforementioned doctrine to the case at bar, it is the Union's constitution proven fatal to the validity thereof?
not far-fetched that Nestle, relying on the implicit validity of
the implementing rule and policy instruction before this Court RATIO DECIDENDI:
nullified them, and thinking that it was not obliged to give
holiday pay benefits to its monthly paid employees, may have It must be remembered that after the MOA was signed, the
been moved to grant other concessions to its employees, members of the Union individually signed contracts
especially in the collective bargaining agreement. This denominated as Reconfirmation of Employment. Cullo did not
possibility is bolstered by the fact that respondent Nestle's dispute the fact that of the 87 members of the Union, who
employees are among the highest paid in the industry. With signed and accepted the Reconfirmation of Employment, 71
this consideration, it would be unfair to impose additional are the respondent employees in the case at bar. Moreover, it
burdens on Nestle when the non-payment of the holiday bears to stress that all the employees were assisted by Rojas,
benefits up to 1984 was not in any way attributed to Nestle's DIHFEU-NFL's president, who even co-signed each contract.
fault.
Stipulated in each Reconfirmation of Employment were the
RULING: new salary and benefits scheme. In addition, it bears to stress
that specific provisions of the new contract also made
WHEREFORE, the order of the voluntary arbitrator in hereby reference to the MOA. Thus, the individual members of the
MODIFIED. The divisor to be used in computing holiday pay union cannot feign knowledge of the execution of the MOA.
shall be 251 days. The holiday pay as above directed shall be Each contract was freely entered into and there is no indication
22
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
that the same was attended by fraud, misrepresentation or against private respondent for payment of salary differential,
duress. To this Court's mind, the signing of the individual overtime pay, unpaid salary for November, 1985 and refund of
Reconfirmation of Employment should, therefore, be deemed his return airfare and cash bond allegedly in the amount of
an implied ratification by the Union members of the MOA. P20,000.00 contending therein that private respondent
unilaterally altered the employment contract by reducing his
Applied to the case at bar, while the terms of the MOA salary of US$800.00 per month to US$560.00, causing him to
undoubtedly reduced the salaries and certain benefits request for his repatriation to the Philippines.
previously enjoyed by the members of the Union, it cannot Dissatisfied, both parties appealed the aforementioned decision
escape this Court's attention that it was the execution of the of the POEA to the National Labor Relations Commission.
MOA which paved the way for the re- opening of the hotel, Complainant-petitioner's appeal was dismissed for lack of merit
notwithstanding its financial distress. More importantly, the while respondents' appeal was dismissed for having been filed
execution of the MOA allowed respondents to keep their jobs. out of time.
It would certainly be iniquitous for the members of the Union
to sign new contracts prompting the re-opening of the hotel ISSUE:
only to later on renege on their agreement on the fact of the
non-ratification of the MOA. Whether or not there was alteration of the original
In addition, it bears to point out that Rojas did not act employment contract.
unilaterally when he negotiated with respondent's
management. The Constitution and By-Laws of DIHFEU-NFL RATIO DECIDENDI:
clearly provide that the president is authorized to represent the
union on all occasions and in all matters in The Court has in many cases involving the construction of
which representation of the union may be agreed or required. statutes always cautioned against narrowly interpreting a
Furthermore, Rojas was properly authorized under a Board of statute as to defeat the purpose of the legislator and stressed
Directors Resolution to negotiate with respondent, the that it is of the essence of judicial duty to construe statutes so
pertinent portions of which read: as to avoid such a deplorable result (of injustice or absurdity)
and that therefore "a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it
while the scales of justice usually tilt in favor of labor, the would be unjust or lead to absurd results."
peculiar circumstances There is no dispute that an alteration of the employment
herein prevent this Court from applying the same in the instant contract without the approval of the Department of Labor is a
petition. Even if our laws endeavor to give life to the serious violation of law.
constitutional policy on social justice and on the protection of Specifically, the law provides:
Article 34 paragraph (i) of the
labor, it does not mean that every labor dispute will be decided Labor Code reads:
in favor of the workers. The law also recognizes that Prohibited Practices. — It shall be unlawful for any individual,
management has rights which are also entitled to respect and entity, licensee, or holder of authority:
enforcement in the interest of fair play. xxxx
(i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and
RULING: verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual
signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. expiration of the same without the approval of the Department
The Decision dated October 11, 2005, and the Resolution of Labor.
dated July 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in consolidated
labor cases docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83831 and CA-G.R. SP In the case at bar, both the Labor Arbiter and the National
No. 83657, are AFFIRMED. Labor Relations Commission correctly analyzed the questioned
annotations as not constituting an alteration of the original
NORBERTO SORIANO, petitioner, vs. OFFSHORE employment contract but only a clarification thereof which by
SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION, KNUT no stretch of the imagination can be considered a violation of
KNUTSEN O.A.S., and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS the above-quoted law. Under similar circumstances, this Court
COMMISSION (Second Division), respondents. ruled that as a general proposition, exceptions from the
G.R. No. 78409 September 14, 1989 coverage of a statute are strictly construed. But such
construction nevertheless must be at all times reasonable,
FERNAN, C.J.: sensible and fair. Hence, to rule out from the exemption
amendments set forth, although they did not materially change
FACTS: the terms and conditions of the original letter of credit, was
held to be unreasonable and unjust, and not in accord with the
Petitioner Norberto Soriano, a licensed Second Marine declared purpose of the Margin Law.
Engineer, sought employment and was hired by private
respondent Knut Knutsen O.A.S. through its authorized The purpose of Article 34, paragraph 1 of the Labor Code is
shipping agent in the Philippines, Offshore Shipping and clearly the protection of both parties. In the instant case, the
Manning Corporation. As evidenced by the Crew Agreement, alleged amendment served to clarify what was agreed upon by
petitioner was hired to work as Third Marine Engineer on the parties and approved by the Department of Labor. To rule
board Knut Provider" with a salary of US$800.00 a month on a otherwise would go beyond the bounds of reason and justice.
conduction basis for a period of fifteen (15) days. He admitted
that the term of the contract was extended to six (6) months As recently laid down by this Court, the rule that there should
by mutual agreement on the promise of the employer to the be concern, sympathy and solicitude for the rights and welfare
petitioner that he will be promoted to Second Engineer. Thus, of the working class, is meet and proper. That in controversies
while it appears that petitioner joined the aforesaid vessel on between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising
July 23, 1985 he signed off on November 27, 1985 due to the from the evidence or in the interpretation of agreements and
alleged failure of private respondent-employer to fulfill its writings should be resolved in the former's favor, is not an
promise to promote petitioner to the position of Second unreasonable or unfair rule. But to disregard the employer's
Engineer and for the unilateral decision to reduce petitioner's own rights and interests solely on the basis of that concern
basic salary from US$800.00 to US$560.00. Petitioner was and solicitude for labor is unjust and unacceptable.
made to shoulder his return airfare to Manila.
In the Philippines, petitioner filed with the Philippine Overseas Finally, it is well-settled that factual findings of quasi-judicial
Employment Administration (POEA for short), a complaint agencies like the National Labor Relations Commission which
23
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined Private respondents acts of dishonesty -- his first offense in his
to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but seven years of employment, as noted by the respondent NLRC
at times even finality if such findings are supported by -- did not show deceit nor constitute fraud and did not result in
substantial evidence. actual prejudice to petitioner. Certainly, such peremptory
In fact since Madrigal v. Rafferty great weight has been dismissal is far too harsh, too severe, excessive and
accorded to the interpretation or construction of a statute by unreasonable under the circumstances.
the government agency called upon to implement the same. Further, none of the enumerations under Art. 282 of the Labor
Code may apply in the instant case.
RULING:
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed
decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED, there
AFFIRMED in toto. being no showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the respondent NLRC.
THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioners,
RELATIONS COMMISSION and EMMANUEL A. vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, COLGATE PALMOLIVE SALES
MENESES, respondents. UNION, respondents.
G.R. No. 116542, July 30, 1996 G.R. No. 73681, June 30, 1988
PANGANIBAN, J. PARAS, J.
FACTS: FACTS:
Complainant called the bank to inform the latter that he had The respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau
an upset stomach and would not be able to report for work. of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice
His superior, however, requested him to report for work consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of union
because the department he was then in was undermanned but officers/members; and coercing employees to retract their
complainant insisted that it was impossible for him to report membership with the union and restraining non-union
for work, hence, he was allowed to go on sick leave on that members from joining the union. On the other hand, petitioner
day. Later on that day, the bank called complainant at his denied the claims of the respondent Union. It also averred that
given Tel. No., but the bank was informed by the answering the suspension and eventual dismissal of the three employees
party at the phone number given by complainant that were due to infractions committed by them and that the
complainant had left early that morning. Complainant management reserves the right to discipline erring employees.
explained that he indeed suffered from an upset stomach and The respondent Minister found no merit in the Union's
that he even consulted Dr. Arthur Logos. The bank called up Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by
Dr. Logos to verify the truth of complainant‘s statement but petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of petitioner to
the doctor denied that he examined or attended to negotiate with the Union, and the secret distribution of survey
complainant. For this reason, the bank directed complainant to sheets allegedly intended to discourage unionism. It also ruled
explain his acts of dishonesty because allegedly he was not that the three dismissed employees were ―not without fault‖
honest in telling the bank that he had an upset stomach, and but nonetheless ordered the reinstatement of the same. Thus,
that he consulted Dr. Logos on that day. Complainant filed a this petition.
statement pleading for leniency such that instead of
termination, he be given a lighter penalty. ISSUE:
The arbiter held that the offenses of dishonesty contemplated
by the Bank‘s Employee Handbook which would warrant Whether the minister erred in directly certifying the Union
termination of services are those involving deceit and resulting based on the latter‘s self-serving assertion that it enjoys the
in loss of trust and confidence. The arbiter further found that support of the majority of the sales force in petitioner‘s
the private respondents proffered excuse, assuming it to be company and in ordering the reinstatement of the three
false, did not result in any damage to the bank, and therefore dismissed employees.
the bank had no reason to lose its trust and confidence in the
private respondent on account of such manner of dishonesty. RATIO DECIDENDI:
Thus, the termination was illegal.
Thus, petitioner argues that the dismissal is reasonable and The court ruled that the order of the respondent Minister to
valid pursuant to its Employee Handbook. reinstate the employees despite a clear finding of guilt on their
part is not in conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply
ISSUE: incompatible with a finding of guilt. Where the totality of the
evidence was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the
Is a provision in the employee‘s handbook stating that any employees the law warrants their dismissal without making any
form of dishonesty shall constitute serious offense(s) calling for distinction between a first offender and a habitual delinquent.
termination valid and binding upon the respondent NLRC? Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to
equally protect and respect not only the labor or workers' side
RATIO DECIDENDI: but also the management and/or employers' side. The law, in
protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither
The general statement in Employee‘s Handbook must be oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. To order the
understood in the context of the enumeration of offenses, all reinstatement of the erring employees would in effect
of which are directly related to the function of the petitioner as encourage unequal protection of the laws as a managerial
a banking institution. It is unarguable that private respondent‘s employee of petitioner company involved in the same incident
false information concerning his whereabouts is not a fraud, was already dismissed and was not ordered to be reinstated.
nor a false entry in the books of the bank; neither is it a failure
to turn over clients funds, or theft or use of company assets, RULING:
or anything analogous as to constitute a serious offense
meriting the extreme penalty of dismissal. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING and
SETTING ASIDE the Order of the respondent Minister, dated
24
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
December 27, 1985 for grave abuse of discretion. However, in MANOLO A. PEAFLOR, petitioner, vs. OUTDOOR
view of the fact that the dismissed employees are first CLOTHING, respondent.
offenders, petitioner is hereby ordered to give them separation G.R. No. 177114, January 21, 2010
pay. The temporary restraining order is hereby made
permanent. BRION, J.
25
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
abandonment or a voluntary resignation? We find position paper was not unreasonable considering that the
from the records that Peaflor sought almost substantive rights of litigants should not be sacrificed by
immediate official recourse to contest his separation technicality. He cited Article 4 of the Labor Code of the
from service through a complaint for illegal dismissal. Philippines, which provides that all doubts in the interpretation
This is not the act of one who voluntarily resigned; thereof shall be resolved in favor of labor. He said that even
his immediate complaints characterize him as one under Section 15, Rule 5 of the Revised Rules of Court, a delay
who deeply felt that he had been wronged. in the filing of a position paper is not a ground for a motion to
dismiss under the principle of exclusio unius est excludio
RULING: alteriu.
Hence, the present petition where petitioners charged the
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitioners petition for review on Labor Arbiter with grave abuse of discretion for issuing the
certiorari, and REVERSE the decision and resolution of the order in contravention of Section 3, Rule V of The New Rules
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87865 promulgated on of Procedure of the NLRC
December 29, 2006 and March 14, 2007, respectively. We
REINSTATE the decision of the labor arbiter dated August 15, ISSUE:
2001, with the MODIFICATION that, due to the strained
relations between the parties, respondents are additionally Whether or not delay in the filing of a position paper is a
ordered to pay separation pay equivalent to the petitioner‘s ground for a motion to dismiss under the principle of exclusio
one month‘s salary. unius est excludio alteriu.
26
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
DOMNA N. VILLAVERT, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES' petitioner that the nature of the work of that deceased directly
COMPENSATION COMMISSION & GOVERNMENT caused or at least aggravates his disease. This was supported
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (Philippine by the fact that he never drinks nor smoke nor engages on
Constabulary), respondents. immoral habits. And as mandated in Art. 4 of the Labor Code,
G.R. No. L-48605 December 14, 1981 âœAll doubts in the implementation and interpretation of
this Code, including its rules and implementation shall be
FACTS: resolved in favor of the laborer.
27
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The petitioner, PASEI, the largest organization of private
We cannot deny the fact that the causes of the illness of the employment and recruitment agencies duly licensed and
deceased are still unknown and may embrace such diverse authorized by the POEA to engage in the business of obtaining
origins which even the medical sciences cannot tell with overseas employment for Filipino land-based workers filed a
reasonable certainty. Indeed, scientists attending the World petition for prohibition to annul the aforementioned order and
Genetic Congress in New Delhi, India, have warned that about
to prohibit implementation.
25,000 chemicals used around the world could potentially
cause cancer, and Lawrence Fishbein of the U.S. National
Center for Toxilogical Research pointed out that humans were ISSUES:
daily exposed to literally hundreds of chemical agents via air,
food, medication, both in their industrial home and whether or not respondents acted with grave abuse of
environments. discretion and/or in excess of their rule-making authority in
issuing said circulars;
The theory of increased risk is applicable in the instant case.
The sweeping conclusion of the respondent Employees whether or not the assailed DOLE and POEA circulars are
Compensation Commission to the effect that the cause of the contrary to the Constitution, are unreasonable, unfair and
bronchogenic carcinoma of the deceased was due to his being oppressive; and
a smoker and not in any manner connected with his work as a whether or not the requirements of publication and filing with
soldier, is not in accordance with medical authorities nor with
the Office of the National Administrative Register were not
the facts on record. No certitude can arise from a position of
complied with.
uncertainty.
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, Art. 5. Rules and Regulations. — The Department of Labor and
INC. petitioner, vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, as other government agencies charged with the administration
Secretary of the Department of Labor & Employment, and enforcement of this Code or any of its parts shall
and JOSE N. SARMIENTO, as Administrator of the promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations.
PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT Such rules and regulations shall become effective fifteen (15)
ADMINISTRATION, respondents. days after announcement of their adoption in newspapers of
[G.R. No. 101279. August 6, 1992.] general circulation;
28
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
against any party or persons. (Chapter 2, Book VII of the 1971 effective on January 1, 1972." The said resolution runs
Administrative Code of 1987.) counter to the provisions of R.A. 6125 which provides that
"(A)ny export product the aggregate annual F.O.B. value of
Sec. 4. Effectivity. — In addition to other rule-making which shall exceed five million United States dollars in any one
requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, calendar year during the effectivity of this Act shall likewise be
each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the subject to the rates of tax in force during the fiscal year
date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed following its reaching the said aggregate value."
by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to
public health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must 2) In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or
be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails
agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency because said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms
rules known to persons who may be affected by them. and provisions of the basic law (People v. Lim, 108 Phil. 1091)
(Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987). The rule or regulation should be within the scope of the
statutory authority granted by the legislature to the
Prohibition granted. administrative agency. (Davis, Administrative Law, p. 194, 197,
cited in Victorias Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security
G.R. No. L-51353 June 27, 1988 Commission, 114 Phil. 555, 558)
SHELL PHILIPPINES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES The respondent was liable to pay the tax and that the Central
Bank merely collected the said tax prematurely. There is
FACTS: likewise no controversy over the rate of tax in force when
payment became due. Thus, the tax refund granted by the trial
On May 1, 1970, Congress approved the Act imposing a court was not proper because the tax paid was in fact, and in
stabilization tax on consignments abroad (RA 6125)that there law due to the government at the correct time.
shall be imposed, assessed and collected a stabilization tax on
the gross F.O.B. peso proceeds, based on the rate of exchange The Court decline to grant to the respondent an amount
prevailing at the time of receipt of such proceeds, whether equivalent to the interest on the prematurely collected tax
partial or total, of any exportation. And that "Any export because of the well entrenched rule that in the absence of a
products the aggregate annual F.O.B. value of which shall statutory provision clearly or expressly directing or authorizing
exceed five million United States dollars in any one calendar payment of interest on the amount to be refunded to the
year during the effectivity of this Act shall likewise be subject taxpayer, the Government cannot be required to pay interest.
to the rates of tax in force during the fiscal years following its Likewise, it is the rule that interest may be awarded only when
reaching the said aggregate value." the collection of tax sought to be refunded was attended with
arbitrariness (Atlas Fertilizer Corp. v. Commission on Internal
The apellee Shell Philippines reach 5 M dollars of their by Revenue, 100 SCRA 556). There is no indication of
product petroleum, the Monetary Board issued its Resolution arbitrariness in the questioned act of the appellant.
No. 47 to the stabilization tax effective January 1, 1972. Under
the Central Bank Circular No. 309, implemented by Resolution INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES'
No. 47, appellee had to pay the stabilization tax beginning UNION (IBAAEU), Petitioner, vs. HON. AMADO G.
January 1, 1972, which it did under protest. The n later filed a INCIONG, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Labor and
suit against Central Bank praying that the resolution be INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA, Respondents.
declared bul and void. The lower court sustained that the G.R. No. L-52415 October 23, 1984
resolution as void. The TC opined mentioning the difference
between calendar year and fiscal year wherein calendar year FACTS:
refers to one year starting from January to December. Fiscal
year, as it is usually and commonly used, refers to the period Petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent bank for the
covered between July 1 of a year to June 30 of the following payment of holiday pay before the then Department of Labor,
year. The Central appealed the above cited decision of TC National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Office No. IV in
Manila. Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. Soriano rendered a decision in
ISSUES: the above-entitled case, granting petitioner's complaint for
payment of holiday pay. The records disclosed that employees
WON Monetary Board Resolution No. 47is null and void? of respondent bank were not paid their wages on unworked
Which should prevail in case of discrepancy, the basic law or regular holidays as mandated by the Code, particularly Article
the rule and regulation issued to implement said law? 208. Accordingly, on February 16, 1976, by authority of Article
5 of the same Code, the Department of Labor (now Ministry of
HELD: Labor) promulgated the rules and regulations for the
implementation of holidays with pay. The controversial section
1) YES. thereof reads:
While it is true that under the same law the Central Bank was Sec. 2. Status of employees paid by the month. - Employees
given the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to who are uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the
implement the statutory provision in question but its authority number of working days therein, with a salary of not less than
is limited only to carrying into effect what the law being the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed
implemented provides. The trial court was correct in declaring to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not.
that "Monetary Board Resolution No. 47 is void insofar as it For this purpose, the monthly minimum wage shall not be less
imposes the tax mentioned in Republic Act No. 6125 on the than the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days
export seria residue of (plaintiff) the aggregate annual F.O.B., divided by twelve"
value of which reached five million United States dollars in
29
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
On April 23, 1976, Policy Instruction No. 9 was issued by the what it says. In the case at bar, the provisions of the Labor
then Secretary of Labor (now Minister) interpreting the above- Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are
quoted rule, pertinent . When the petitioner filed motion for clear and explicit - it provides for both the coverage of and
the writ of execution to enforce the arbiters decision whereby exclusion from the benefits. This violates Article 4 of the Labor
the respondent bank was ordered to pay for the daily waged Code, which states that "All doubts in the implementation and
for the unworked holiday pay in accordance with the award, interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its
respondent bank opposed claiming that it is based on and implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor
justified by Policy Instruction No. 9 which interpreted the rules of labor." Moreover, it shall always be presumed that the
implementing P. D. 850. NLRC dismissed the respondents bank legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute
appeal but Minister of Labor through Deputy Minister Amado which would have the most beneficial effect that its language
Inciong set aside the decision of NLRC and instead dismissed permits (Orlosky vs. Haskell, 155 A. 112.)
the instant case for lack of merit.
Obviously, the Secretary (Minister) of Labor had exceeded his
ISSUE: statutory authority granted by Article 5 of the Labor Code
authorizing him to promulgate the necessary implementing
Whether or not the decision of a Labor Arbiter awarding rules and regulations.
payment of regular holiday pay can still be set aside on appeal
by the Deputy Minister of Labor even though it has already ELDEPIO LASCO, Et. Al., all represented by MARIANO R.
become final and had been partially executed, the finality of ESPINA, petitioner, vs. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING
which was affirmed by the National Labor Relations FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION
Commission sitting en banc, on the basis of an Implementing (UNRFNRE) represented by its operations manager,
Rule and Policy Instruction promulgated by the Ministry of DR. KYRIACOS LOUCA, OSCAR N. ABELLA, LEON G.
Labor long after the said decision had become final and GONZAGA, JR., MUSIB M. BUAT, Commissioners of
executory. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth
Division, Cagayan de Oro City and IRVING PETILLA,
HELD: Labor Arbiter of Butuan City, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 109095-109107
NO. February 23, 1995
Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the implementing rules and QUIASON, J.:
Policy Instruction No. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor
are null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor FACTS:
Code's provisions on holiday pay, they in effect amended them Petitioners were dismissed from their employment
by enlarging the scope of their exclusion. with private respondent, the United Nations Revolving Fund for
Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), which is a special
Article 94 of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 850, fund and subsidiary organ of the United Nations. The
provides: UNRFNRE is involved in a joint project of the Philippine
Art. 94. Right to holiday pay. - (a) Every worker shall be paid Government and the United Nations for exploration work in
his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in retail Dinagat Island.
and service establishments regularly employing less than ten
(10) workers. ... In the case before the NLRC, the private respondent alleged in
The coverage and scope of exclusion of the Labor Code's their motion to dismiss that respondent Labor Arbiter had no
holiday pay provisions is spelled out under Article 82 thereof jurisdiction over its personality since it enjoyed diplomatic
which reads: immunity pursuant to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges
Art. 82. Coverage. - The provision of this Title shall apply to and Immunities of the United Nations. In support thereof,
employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for private respondent attached a letter from the Department of
profit or not, but not to government employees, managerial Foreign Affairs dated August 26, 1991, which acknowledged its
employees, field personnel members of the family of the immunity from suit. The letter confirmed that private
employer who are dependent on him for support domestic respondent, being a special fund administered by the United
helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and Nations, was covered by the 1946 Convention on the Privileges
workers who are paid by results as determined by the and Immunities of the United Nations of which the Philippine
Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations Government was an original signatory.
From the above-cited provisions, it is clear that monthly paid Private respondent issued an order dismissing the complaints
employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. on the ground that private respondent was protected by
However, the implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated diplomatic immunity.
by the then Secretary of Labor excludes monthly paid
employees from the said benefits by inserting, under Rule IV, ISSUE:
Book Ill of the implementing rules, Section 2 which provides
that: "employees who are uniformly paid by the month, Whether or not the private respondents, being a special fund
irrespective of the number of working days therein, with a administered by the United Nations are entitled to immunity of
salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum suit in labor disputes.
wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month
whether worked or not. RATIO DECIDENDI:
It is elementary in the rules of statutory construction Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that decisions of the
that when the language of the law is clear and NLRC are final and executory. Thus, they may only be
unequivocal the law must be taken to mean exactly
30
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
questioned through certiorari as a special civil action under REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. NATIONAL PARKS DEVELOPMENT
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized COMMITTEE, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF
Agencies of the APPEALS and THE NATIONAL PARKS DEVELOPMENT
United Nations, to which the Philippines was a signatory, SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION & THEIR
Sections 4 and 5 of Article III thereof: MEMBERS, respondents.
Sec. 4. The specialized agencies, their property and G.R. No. 87676
assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held December 20, 1989
shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process
except insofar as in any particular case they have GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
expressly waived their immunity. It is, however,
understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend FACTS:
to any measure of execution (Emphasis supplied).
Sec. 5. The premises of the specialized agencies shall National Parks Development Committee (NPDC) was originally
be inviolable. The property and assets of the created under EO 30 and later renamed under EO 68. It was
specialized agencies, wherever located and by also registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission as
whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, a non-stock and non-profit corporation known as ―The National
requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other Parks Development Committee, Inc.‖ For their failure to submit
form of interference, whether by executive, certain documents, NPDC was ordered to show cause why its
administrative, judicial or legislative action (Emphasis Certificate of Registration should not be suspended, to which
supplied). they replied that they had no objection to the suspension,
Sec. 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution: cancellation, or revocation of the Certificate of Registration of
Sec. 2. The Philippines renounces war as an NPDC. By virtue of EO 120, NPDC was attached to the
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally Department of Tourism and was provided with a separate
accepted principles of international law as part of the budget subject to the audit by the Commission on audit.
law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity NPDC Employees Association (NPDCEA) entered into two
with all nations. collecting bargaining agreements with NPDC. These unions
staged a strike at the Rizal Park, Fort Santiago, Paco Park, and
RULING: Pook ni Mariang Makiling alleging unfair labor practices by the
NPDC. The NPDC filed with the Regional Trial Court in Manila a
The Office of the Solicitor General is of the view that private complaint against the union to declare the strike illegal and to
respondent is covered by the mantle of diplomatic immunity. restrain it on the ground that they have no right to strike as
Private respondent is a specialized agency of the United government employees but they may form a union.
Nations. Under Article 105 of the Charter of the United The lower court dismissed the petition assailing that it is the
Nations: Department of Labor who has jurisdiction over the case
1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of its because there exists an employer-employee relationship
Members such privileges and immunities as are between NPDC and the strikers. The petitioner appealed to the
necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. CA on certiorari but the latter affirmed the decision of the trial
2. Representatives of the Members of the United court. Hence, this petition.
Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly
enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary ISSUE:
for the independent exercise of their functions in
connection with the organization. Whether the petitioner, National Parks Development
Corollary to the cited article is the Convention on the Privileges Committee (NPDC), is a government agency, or a private
and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United corporation, for on this issue depends the right of its
Nations, to which the Philippines was a signatory (Vol. 1, employees to strike.
Philippine Treaty Series, p. 621). We quote Sections 4 and 5 of
Article III thereof: RATIO DECIDENDI:
Sec. 4. The specialized agencies, their property and
assets, wherever located and by whomsoever Sec. 2, Article IX of the Philippine Constitution
held shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal (1) The civil service embraces all branches,
process except insofar as in any particular case they subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of
have expressly waived their immunity. It is, however, the Government, including government-owned
understood that no waiver of immunity shall and controlled corporations with original charters.
extend to any measure of execution (Emphasis
supplied). RULING:
As a matter of state policy as expressed in the
Constitution, the Philippine Government adopts the generally The Court ruled that NPDC is an agency of the government,
accepted principles of international law (1987 Constitution, Art. not a government-owned or controlled corporation, hence, its
II, Sec. 2). Being a member of the United Nations and a party employees are covered by the Civil Service rules and
to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the regulations. Its employees are Civil Service employees.
Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, the Philippine
Government adheres to the doctrine of immunity granted to The Court also ruled that ―While NPDC employees are allowed
the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Both treaties under the 1987 Constitution to organize and join unions of
have the force and effect of law. 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
31
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
1, 1987 provides that the Public Sector Labor- Management controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned
Council, not the Department of Labor and Employment, shall from his office upon filing of his certificate of candidacy.
hear the dispute. Clearly, the Court of Appeals and the lower
court erred in holding that the labor dispute between the NPDC The Court ruled that Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code
and the members of the NPDSA is cognizable by the applies to officers and employees in GOCCs, even those
Department of Labor and Employment.‖ organized under the general laws and therefore not having an
original charter, and even if they do not fall under the Civil
PNOC ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and Service Law but under the Labor Code. In other words, Sec. 66
MARCELINO TONGCO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL constitutes as a just cause for termination of employment in
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MANUEL S. addition to those set forth in the Labor Code, as amended.
PINEDA, respondents.
G.R. No. 100947 BENJAMIN C. JUCO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
May 31, 1993 RELATIONS COMMISSION and NATIONAL HOUSING
CORPORATION, respondents.
NARVASA, C.J.: G.R. No. 98107
August 18, 1997
FACTS:
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
Manuel Pineda was employed with the PNOC-ADC as a clerk.
He later on become a Geothermal Construction Secretary FACTS:
during which he also decided to run for councilor of the
Municipality of Kananga, Leyte. An objection to his candidacy Petitioner was hired as a project engineer of National housing
was raised alleging that he could not actively participate in Corporation. He was separated from the service for having
politics unless he is officially resigned from PNOC-EDC. been implicated in a crime of theft and/or malversation of
However, nothing resulted from such protest and Pineda public funds. He filed an illegal dismissal case against the NHC
eventually won in the elections. He was proclaimed as a with the Department of Labor. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the
councilor. Pineda raised a question before the Secretary of case stating that it has no jurisdiction over the case. The case
Justice on whether or not he was "considered automatically before the Labor Arbiter went up to the Supreme Court which
resigned upon filing of (his) certificate of candidacy," and decided for the Respondent. Thereafter, Petitioner filed with
whether or not, in case he was elected, he could "remain the Civil Service Commission a complaint for illegal dismissal
appointed to any corporate offspring of a government-owned which the CSC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently,
or controlled corporation. Nevertheless, he took his oath of petitioner filed with the NLRC a case for illegal dismissal
office and continued working for PNOC-EDC wherein the case was dismissed on appeal for lack of
Eventually, PNOC-EDC notified Pineda that he is separated jurisdiction.
from his service upon their [PNOC-EDC] inquiry in their legal
department regarding the status of Pineda as employee in view Respondent NLRC, though Labor Arbiter Caday, ruled that
of his candidacy for the office of the municipal councilor and Juco‘s dismissal was illegal as there was evidence in the record
that the said department said that Pineda should be that the criminal case against Juco was fabricated, prompting
considered ipso facto resigned upon the filing of his Certificate the trial court to dismiss the charges against him and ruled
of Candidacy. Pineda filed an illegal dismissal case in the NLRC furthermore that Juco‘s complaint filed was not barred by
to which it ruled for Pineda‘s reinstatement and payment of full prescription. NHC appealed the NLRC‘s decision in which the
backwages. NLRC stated that PNOC-EDC, being a GOCC latter reversed its earlier decision on the ground of lack of
incorporated under the Corporation Code, the general law, are jurisdiction.
not deemed to be within the coverage of the Civil Service Law,
and consequently their employees, like those of PNOC-EDC, ISSUE:
are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code rather than the
Civil Service Law. Whether or not NLRC, or the CSC has jurisdiction over the
case.
ISSUE:
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Whether an employee in a government-owned or controlled
corporation without an original charter nevertheless falls within Sec. 2, Article IX of the Philippine Constitution
the scope of Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. (1) The civil service embraces all branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of
RATIO DECIDENDI: the Government, including government-owned
and controlled corporations with original charters.
Sec. 2, Article IX of the Philippine Constitution
(1) The civil service embraces all branches, RULING:
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of
the Government, including government-owned The Court held that it is the NLRC that has jurisdiction over the
and controlled corporations with original charters. case. The National Housing Corporation is a government
owned corporation organized in 1959 in accordance with
RULING: Executive Order No. 399, otherwise known as the Uniform
Charter of Government Corporation, dated January 1, 1959. Its
The Court held that the Congress, in reviewing the Omnibus shares of stock are and have been one hundred percent
Election Code, made no effort to distunguis between the two (100%) owned by the Government from its incorporation
classes of GOCCs or their employees, particularly as regards under Act 1459, the former corporation law. Considering the
the rule that any employee ―in government-owned and fact that the NHA had been incorporated under Act 1459, the
32
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
former corporation law, it is but correct to say that it is a HELLENIC PHILIPPINE SHIPPING, INC., petitioner,
government-owned or controlled corporation whose employees vs.
are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code. The Supreme EPIFANIO C. SIETE and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
Court held that the NHA is now within the jurisdiction of the COMMISSION (NLRC), respondents.
Department of Labor and Employment, it being a government- G.R. No. 84082 March 13, 1991
owned and/or controlled corporation without an original
CRUZ, J.:
charter. Thus, the NLRC erred in dismissing petitioner's
complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the rule now is that
FACTS:
the Civil Service now covers only government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters. Having been
Siete was employed on May 22, 1985, as Master of M/V Houda
incorporated under the Corporation Law, its relations with its
G by Sultan Shipping Co., Ltd., through its crewing agent,
personnel are governed by the Labor Code and come under
herein petitioner. He boarded the vessel on May 24, 1985. On
the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission.
July 8, 1985, Capt. Wilfredo Lim boarded the vessel and
advised Siete that he had instructions from the owners to take
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DOMINGO PANIS
over its command. On July 12, 1985, Siete filed a complaint
GR No. L–58674–77, July 11, 1990
against the petitioner for illegal dismissal and non-payment of
FACTS: his salary and other benefits under their employment contract.
Petitioner dismissed private respondent because of his failure
On January 9, 1981, four information were filed in the in the to complete with the instruction of Sultan Shipping to erase the
Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zambales and Olongapo City timber load line on the vessel and for his negligence in the
alleging that herein private respondent Serapio Abug, "without discharge of the cargo at Tripoli that endangered the vessel
first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of and stevedores. The Philippine Overseas Employment
authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did Administration (POEA) dismissed the complaint, holding that
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a there was valid cause for Siete's removal.
private fee charging employment agency by charging fees and On January 4, 1988, the private respondent appealed to the
expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" NLRC, contending that the records presented by the petitioner
to four separate individuals. Abug filed a motion to quash were prepared long after his dismissal. He insisted that he
contending that he cannot be charged for illegal recruitment was dismissed without even being informed of the charges
because according to him, Article 13(b) of the Labor Code says against him or given an opportunity to refute them. NLRC
there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more reversed the POEA Administrator, holding that the dismissal
persons are in any manner promised or offered any violated due process and that the documents submitted by the
employment for a fee.‖ petitioner were hearsay, self-serving, and not verified.
33
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
34
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
35
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
EDGARDO M. PANGANIBAN, Petitioner, v. TARA The fact is that the petitioner failed to establish, by substantial
TRADING SHIP MANAGEMENT INC. AND SHINELINE evidence, that his brief psychotic disorder was caused by the
SDN BHD, Respondents. nature of his work as oiler of the company-owned vessel. The
G.R. No. 187116: October 18, 2010 Court can only surmise that the brief psychotic disorder
suffered by him was brought about by a family problem. His
MENDOZA,J.: daughter was sick and, as a seafarer, he could not just decide
to go home and be with his family. Even the psychiatric report
FACTS: prepared by the evaluating private psychiatrist of petitioner
shows that the hospitalization of petitioners youngest daughter
In November 2005, petitioner was hired by respondent Tara caused him poor sleep and appetite.
Trading Ship management, Inc.(Tara),in behalf of its foreign
principal, respondent Shinline SDN BHD (Shinline) to work as Further, Section 20-B of the POEA Amended Standard Terms
an Oiler on board MV Thailine 5 with a monthly salary of and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers
US$409.00. Sometime in April 2006, petitioner began on Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA-SEC) provides for
exhibiting signs of mental instability. He was repatriated on compensation and benefits for injury or illness suffered by a
May 24, 2006 for further medical evaluation and management. seafarer. It says that, in order to claim disability benefits under
Petitioner was referred by respondents to the Metropolitan the Standard Employment Contract, it is the company-
Medical Center where he was diagnosed to be suffering from designated physician who must proclaim that the seaman
brief psychotic disorder. suffered a permanent disability, whether total or partial, due to
either injury or illness, during the term of the latter‘s
Despite his supposed total and permanent disability and employment. In this case, the findings of respondents
despite repeated demands for payment of disability designated physician that petitioner has been suffering from
compensation, respondents allegedly failed and refused to brief psychotic disorder and that it is not work-related must be
comply with their contractual obligations. Petitioner filed a respected. The Court commiserates with the petitioner, but
Complaint against respondents for total and permanent absent substantial evidence from which reasonable basis for
disability benefits, reimbursement of medical and hospital the grant of benefits prayed for can be drawn, the Court is left
expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney‘s fees with no choice but to deny his petition, lest an injustice be
equivalent to 10% of total claims. caused to the employer.
Respondents maintained that petitioner requested for an early PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. VICENTA
repatriation and arrived at the point of hire on May 24, 2006; MEDINA LAPIS, ANGEL MATEO, AIDA DE LEON (at
that while on board the vessel, he confided to a co-worker, large) and JEAN AM-AMLAW (at large), appellants.
Henry Santos, that his eating and sleeping disorders were due G.R. Nos. 145734-35 October 15, 2002
to some family problems; that Capt. Zhao, the master of the
vessel, even asked him if he wanted to see a doctor; that he PANGANIBAN, J.:
initially declined; that on May 22, 2006, petitioner approached
Capt. Zhao and requested for a vacation and early repatriation; FACTS:
that the said request was granted; that upon arrival, petitioner
was subjected to a thorough psychiatric evaluation; and that The RTC found accused Vicenta Medina Lapis and Angel Mateo
after a series of check-ups, it was concluded that his illness did are pronounced guilty of violating Section 6, of Republic Act
not appear to be work-related. Respondents argued that No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
petitioner was not entitled to full and permanent disability 1995 and Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration Standard Employment Contract (POEA SEC) On March, 1998 and thereafter in Makati City, the above-
because there was no declaration from the company- named accused, conspiring and confederating with each other,
designated physician that he was permanently and totally did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit
disabled and that the claim for damages was without basis as the herein complainants, MELCHOR F. DEGSI and PERPETUA L.
no bad faith can be attributed to them. DEGSI for employment as an office worker and as a cook or
mechanic in Japan, for and in consideration thereof, they were
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner. Respondents required to pay the amount of P158,600.00 as alleged
appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the decision of the Labor placement and processing fees, which the complainants
Arbiter. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the delivered and paid the amount of P158,600.00 Philippine
NLRC. Currency, knowing that they have no capacity whatsoever and
with no intention to fulfill their promise, but merely as a
ISSUE: pretext, scheme or excuse to get or exact money from said
complainant. For their part, appellants deny that they were
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to full and total disability engaged in recruitment activities, and that they promised
benefits. foreign employment to the victims.
Whether the illness is work related.
ISSUE(S):
HELD: No.
Whether the accused are guilty of: (1) illegal recruitment
In Mabuhay Shipping Services, Inc. v. NLRC, the Court held committed by a syndicate; and (2) estafa under Art. 315 of the
that the death of a seaman even during the term of RPC.
employment does not automatically give rise to compensation.
This is not the work-related instance contemplated by the HELD:
provisions of the employment contract in order to be entitled
to the benefits. Otherwise, every seaman would automatically (1) Yes.
be entitled to compensation because the nature of his work is Illegal recruitment is committed when these two elements
not land-based and the submission of the seaman to the concur: (1) the offenders have no valid license or authority
company-designated physician as to the nature of the illness required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the
suffered by him would just be an exercise of futility. recruitment and placement of workers, and (2) the offenders
undertake any activity within the meaning of recruitment and
36
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
placement defined in Article 13(b) or any prohibited practices Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). Likewise, the other private
enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code. complainants relied on the accused‘s promises of employment
in Japan. Appellant Mercy Logan denied that she swindled the
Undisputed is the fact that the former did not have any valid private complainants of their money nor promised them any
authority or license to engage in recruitment and placement overseas employment. In her appeal, appellant Mercy Logan
activities. It is also important to determine whether illegal essentially claims that she did not represent herself as a job
recruitment committed by appellants can be qualified as a recruiter to the private complainants.
syndicated illegal recruitment or an offense involving economic
sabotage. ISSUE:
Section 6 of RA 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers Whether Logan is liable for estafa and illegal recruitment in
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, provides that illegal large scale.
recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic
sabotage when it is committed by a syndicate or carried out by HELD: Yes
a group of three or more persons conspiring and confederating
with one another. In several cases, illegal recruitment has The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in
been deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a large scale , are as follows: 1) the accused engages in the
group of three or more persons conspiring and/or recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under Article
confederating with each other in carrying out any unlawful or 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the
illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under Article Labor Code; 2) the accused has not complied with the
38(b) of the Labor Code. guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an
In this case, it cannot be denied that all four (4) accused -- authority to recruit and deploy workers, whether locally or
Jane Am-amlaw, Aida de Leon, Angel Mateo and Vicenta overseas; and 3) the accused commits the same against three
Medina Lapis participated in a network of deception. Verily, the (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
active involvement of each in the various phases of the
recruitment scam formed part of a series of machinations. It has been established that the three (3) private complainants
met with the appellant on separate occasions where she
(2) Yes promised them employment either as construction workers or
Under the cited provision of the Revised Penal Code, estafa is piggery helpers in Japan for a fee. Despite subsequent
committed by any person who defrauds another by using a payment of her required fees, she failed to secure for the three
fictitious name; or by falsely pretending to possess power, (3) private complainants any overseas employment. Clearly,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business; by the appellant was engaged in large scale recruitment and
imaginary transactions or similar forms of deceit executed prior placement activities which were illegal for the reason that she
to or simultaneous with the fraud. Moreover, these false had no license nor authority from the Secretary of Labor and
pretenses should have been the very reason that motivated Employment.
complainants to deliver property or pay money to the
perpetrators of the fraud. While appellants insist that these It is well-settled that a person who has committed illegal
constitutive elements of the crime were not sufficiently shown recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of the
by the prosecution, the records of the case prove otherwise. crime of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa
under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
The requirement that the fraudulent statements should have The reason for the rule is that the crime of illegal recruitment
been made prior to or simultaneous with the actual payment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused
was satisfied. Verily, by their acts of falsely representing is not necessary for conviction, while the crime of estafa is
themselves as persons who had the power and the capacity to malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is
recruit workers for abroad, appellants induced complainants to necessary for conviction. In other words, a person convicted
pay the required fees. There is estafa if, through insidious under the Labor Code may also be convicted of offenses
words and machinations, appellants deluded complainants into punishable by other laws. Art. 314 provides that: Any person
believing that, for a fee, the latter would be provided overseas who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
jobs. hereinbelow xxx
Xxx xxx xxx
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
MERCY LOGAN y CALDERON, accused-appellant. fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
G.R. Nos. 135030-33. July 20, 2001 commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess
DE LEON, JR., J.: power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other
FACTS: similar deceits.
xxx xxx xxx
On August 1994, in Quezon City, , the above-named accused, The elements of the above mode of committing estafa are: a)
without any authority of law, did then and there, wilfully, that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee, enlist, recruit and promise fraudulent means; b) that such false pretense, fraudulent act
employment/job placement abroad to the following persons, to or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
wit: (1) Rodrigo Acorda; (2) Orlando Velasco; and (3) Florente simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; c) that the
Casia. Without first securing the required license or authority offended party must have relied on the false pretense,
from the Department of Labor and Employment. fraudulent act or fraudulent means, i.e., he was induced to
part with his money or property because of the false pretense,
Rodrigo was required by the appellant to pay a placement fee fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and, d) that as a result
in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
(P150,000.00). Rodrigo initially paid Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) to the appellant on January 31, 1994 and he was
required to fill up an application form. While his travel
documents were allegedly being processed, Rodrigo was asked
by the appellant to pay the additional amount of Twenty
37
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LEONIDA MERIS Y Whether or not the petitioners were regular employees.
PADILLA
G.R. NOS. 117145-50 & 117447 MARCH 28, 2000 Ratio Decidendi:
Issue:
38
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
MARCIAL GU-MIRO VS. ROLANDO ADORABLE the disability he suffered which rendered him unfit to work as
G.R. NO. 160952 AUGUST 20, 2004 a seafarer.
Ynares-Santiago, J: Issue:
39
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor can cancel recruitment A private employment agency may be sued jointly and
licenses. solidarily with its foreign principal for violations of the
recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment.
Ratio Decidendi:
RULING:
A non-licensee or non-holder of authority means any person,
corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license Private respondent‘s contract of employment cannot be said to
or authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the have expired as it was automatically renewed because of the
Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been non-notice of termination given one month prior as indicated in
suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the Secretary. the contract agreement. Therefore, the injury was sustained
during the lifetime of the contract. Even if indeed petitioner
Ruling: and the Saudi principal had already severed their agency
agreement at the time private respondent was injured,
The Court held that the power to suspend or cancel any license petitioner may still be sued for a violation of the employment
or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment is contract because no notice of the agency agreement‘s
concurrently vested with the POEA and the Secretary of Labor. termination was given to the private respondent. No evidence
was also introduced that private respondent was not medically
fit to work when he returned to Saudi. By purchasing a ticket
for his return to work, it is as if petitioner had certified his
fitness to work.
40
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
ROYAL CROWN INTERNATIONALE VS. NATIONAL PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. REYDANTE CALONZO
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSI0N and VIRGILIO P. Y AMBROSIO
NACIONALES G.R. Nos. 115150-55 September 27, 1996
G.R. No. 78085 October 16, 1989
BELLOSILLO, J.:
CORTES, J.:
FACTS:
FACTS:
Calonzo informed Danilo de los Reyes and Belarmino
In 1983, Royal Crown International, a private employment Torregrosa that they can provide them employment abroad
agency, recruited and deployed Virgilio P. Nacionales for specifically Italy, so they took stock of their assets to came up
employment with ZAMEL as an architectural draftsman in Saudi with figures sufficient to process their application abroad. They
Arabia. On February 13, 1984, ZAMEL terminated the boarded to Thailand and were told that their visas for Italy will
employment of private respondent on the ground that his be processed there. Calonzo collected money again from them
performance was below at par. For the next three successive purportedly to defray the expenses for their visas, only to find
days, the private respondent was detained at his quarters and out that Calonzo returned to the Philippines. De los Reyes and
was not allowed to report to work until his exit papers were Torregrosa were able to go back to the Philippines through the
ready. On February 16, 1984, he was made to board a plane help of one Loreta Castaeda. The promises remained
bound for the Philippines. Private respondent filed a complaint unfulfilled so they looked again for Calonzo but this time their
for illegal termination against petitioner and ZAMEL with POEA. quarry had already absconded. Upon verification, the POEA
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the NLRC certified that neither RAC Business Agency nor Calonzo was
denied it for lack of merit. Hence petitioner filed a petition for authorized to recruit workers for employment abroad. Three
review. other victims appeared and narrated the same experience.
However Calonzo disclaims all the allegations of the
ISSUE: complainants.
Wherefore, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant Wherefore, the Court rendered judgment finding Calonzo
petition. guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
41
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
HORTENCIA SALAZAR VS. HON. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SAMINA ANGELES y
in his capacity as Administrator of the Philippine CALMA
Overseas Employment Administration, and FERDIE G.R. No. 132376 April 11, 2002
MARQUEZ
G.R. No. 81510 March 14, 1990 YNARES, SANTIAGO J.:
FACTS: Maria Tolosa Sardeo was working in Saudi Arabia when she
received a call from her sister, Priscilla, who was in Paris,
On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro filed with the POEA a France. Priscilla advised Maria to return to the Philippines and
complaint against petitioner. Having ascertained that the await the arrival of her friend, accused Samina Angeles, who
petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, would assist in processing her travel and employment
public respondent Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued his documents to Paris. Heeding her sister‘s advice, Maria returned
challenged Closure and Seizure order. The POEA brought a to the Philippines. Marceliano Tolosa likewise received and
team to the premises of Salazar to implement the order. There followed the same instructions from his sister Priscilla. They
it was found that petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance eventually met the accused to whom they gave the money
Studio. Before entering the place, the team served said Closure required for the processing of their documents. Precila Olpindo
and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. Flora Salazar who and Vilma Brina also received the same instructions from
voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. Mrs. Flora Precila‘s sister who met the accused in Belgium. Precila‘s sister
Salazar informed the team that Hannalie Dance Studio was told her that the accused could help process her documents for
accredited with Moreman Development (Phil.). However, when employment in Canada. The accused told Precila and Vilma
required to show credentials, she was unable to produce any. that it was easier to complete the processing of their papers if
Inside the studio, the team chanced upon twelve talent they would start from Jakarta, Indonesia rather than from
performers — practicing a dance number and saw about Manila. So Precila, Vilma and accused Angeles flew to Jakarta.
twenty more waiting outside. The team confiscated assorted However, accused returned to the Philippines after two days,
costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion leaving the two behind. Precila tried to get in touch with the
Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar. A few days accused but could not be reached anymore. Maria and
after, petitioner filed a letter with the POEA demanding the Marceliano also began looking for her after she disappeared
return of the confiscated properties. They alleged lack of with their money. The POEA presented a certification to the
hearing and due process, and that since the house the POEA effect that accused Angeles was not duly licensed to recruit
raided was a private residence, it was robbery. On February 2, workers here and abroad. The accused, however, contended
1988, the petitioner filed this suit for prohibition. Although the that she never represented to the complainants that she could
acts sought to be barred are already fait accompli, thereby provide them with work abroad. She pointed out that none of
making prohibition too late, we consider the petition as one the complainants testified on what kind of jobs were promised
for certiorari in view of the grave public interest involved. to them, how much they would earn, the length of their
employment and even the names of their employers, which are
ISSUE: basic subjects a prospective employee would first determine.
The Court reiterated that the Secretary of Labor, not being a RATIO DECIDENDI:
judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence,
the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that Illegal recruitment is qualified when a non-holder or non-
extent, it was declared Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor licensee offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to
Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect. two or more persons.
RULING: RULING:
The Closure and Seizure order in question, assuming, ex gratia To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the
argumenti, that it was validly issued, is clearly in the nature of accused gave complainants the distinct impression that he had
a general warrant. The law pronounced that a warrant must the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such
identify clearly the things to be seized, otherwise, it is null and that the latter were convinced to part with their money in
void. Under Article III, Section 2, of the l987 Constitution, it is order to be employed. To be engaged in the practice of
only judges, and no other, who may issue warrants of arrest recruitment and placement, it is plain that there must at least
and search, exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and be a promise or offer of an employment from the person
undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner of posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad. In this case,
Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of none of the complainants testified that the accused lured them
deportation, for the purpose of deportation. to part with their hard-earned money with promises of jobs
abroad. On the contrary, they were all consistent in saying that
Wherefore, the petition is granted. Article 38, paragraph (c) their relatives abroad where the ones who contacted them and
of the Labor Code is declared unconstitutional and null and urged them to meet the accused who would assist them in
void. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials processing their travel documents. The accused did not have
seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure to make promises of employment as these were already done
Order No. 1205. by complainants‘ relatives. However, clearly Samina Angeles
42
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
defrauded complainants by falsely pretending to possess the prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they
power and capacity to process their travel documents. initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas.
It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, accused Samina Angeles pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after
is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who
as to the cases of Maria Tolosa Sardeo, Marceliano Tolosa and owned the placement agency. As correctly held by the trial
Precila Olpindo, and was acquitted for failure of the court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical
prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses, they
against Vilma Brina and the filed case for illegal recruitment. being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant was
actually making referrals to the agency of which she was a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LOMA GOCE y part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity.
OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the
G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995 recruitment agency, working together with the Goce couple.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of
REGALADO, J.: having the ability to send a worker abroad. It is undisputed
that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that
FACTS: she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work
such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she
On January 1988, an information for illegal recruitment demanded in order to be so employed. It cannot be denied
committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under that Agustin received from complainants various sums for
Articles 38 and 39 of the labor code as amended by PD 2018, purpose of their applications. Her act of collecting from each of
filed against Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin in the RTC the complainants‘ payment for their respective passports,
of Manila, alleging that in or about during the period comprised training fees, placement fees, medical tests and other sundry
between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive in expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment
the City of Manila, the accused conspired and represent within the meaning of the law.
themselves to have the capacity to recruit Filipino workers for
employment abroad. On January 1987, a warrant of arrest was Wherefore, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is
issued against the 3 accused bot none of them was arrested. hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against accused-appellant
Hence, on February 1989, the RTC ordered the case archived Nelly D. Agustin.
but issued a standing warrant os arrest against the accused.
Thereafter, knowing the whereabouts of the accused, Rogelio PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ABELARDO
Salado requested for a copy of the warrant of arrest and AVENDAÑO
eventually Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Paranaque G.R. No. 96277-88 December 2, 1992
Police. Agustin's counsel filed a motion to revive the case and
requested to set a hearing for purpose of due process and for GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
accused to immediately have her day in court. On the
arraignment, Agustin pleaded not guilty and the trial went on FACTS:
with four complainants testified for the prosecution and
receipts of the processing fees they paid. Agustin for the Six (6) separate information for Illegal Recruitment of some 38
defense asserted that Goce couple were licensed recruiters but workers were filed against Abelardo Avendaño, who
denied her participation in the recruitment and denied represented himself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and
knowledge of the receipts as well. On November 1993, trial transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did, then
court rendered judgment finding that Agustin as a principal in and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a fee, recruit
the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale with sentence of and promise employment/job placement abroad to the
life imprisonment and pay P100,000.00. complainants. The cases were consolidated and jointly tried.
The accused was proven to be the Treasurer of MCBRAJ Agro-
ISSUES: Industrial Development Company (MAINDECO) located in
Malabon City which is also his residence. The company is not
Whether or not the act of introducing complainants to the licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
Goce couple falls within the meaning of illegal recruitment and employment. On the other hand, the accused tried to show
placement under Article 13 (b) in relation to Article 34 of the that MAINDECO was really engaged in the construction
Labor Code. business, and was duly registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Avendaño claimed that was just
RATIO DECIDENDI: appointed treasurer of the corporation and, as such, he
received payments and issued receipts.
The recruitment and placement refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring ISSUE:
or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, Whether or not the accused Abelardo Avendaño is guilty of
whether for profit or not; provided, that any person or entity illegal recruitment.
which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment
to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in RATIO DECIDENDI:
recruitment and placement.
Illegal recruitment, when committed by a syndicate or in large
RULING: scale shall be considered an offense involving economic
sabotage. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a
The testimonial evidence shows that she indeed further syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more
committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in
43
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or accused but the latter did not issue any receipt for said
scheme, and it is deemed committed in large scale if amount.
committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as
a group. The accused Nimfa Bodozo demanded from the private
complainant Fernando Gagtan the amount of P20,000.00 in
RULING: connection with his application for employment abroad.
Fernando Gagtan paid to the accused Nimfa Bodozo, also on
October 3, 1988, the amount of P12,000.00 for which the said
It is admitted that MAINDECO is not licensed or authorized by
accused signed and issued Receipts and the amount of
the Department of Labor and Employment to engage in P8,000.00 through Maxima Gagtan the mother of Fernando
recruitment of persons for overseas employment. Gagtan, for which the accused Nimfa Bodozo issued a Receipt
Consequently, the recruitment activities undertaken by dated April 8, 1989.
MAINDECO are illegal. The accused admitted that the
complainants, who paid for certificates of stock of MAINDECO, The accused Nimfa Bodozo demanded from Domingo Obiacoro
were told by the President of the corporation that they would the amount of P20,000.00 in connection with hi application for
be sent to Papua, New Guinea pursuant to the joint venture employment abroad. Of the amount, P10,000.00 will be used
tuna industry. The accused was aware that the complainants for the purchase of a plane ticket for the private complainant
were offered job opportunities in Papua, New Guinea. The for Singapore and the balance of P10,000.00 was to be used
assurance that they would be sent abroad, in addition to being as placement fee for the application of the private complainant
for employment abroad. Domingo Obiacoro paid P10,000.00 to
stockholders of the corporation, impelled the complainants to
the accused Nimfa Bodozo in the house of the friend of the
give their money to the accused. Thus, aside from being
accused in Luna, La Union but the accused did not issue any
required to pay for the certificates of stock, the complainants
Receipt for the amount at the time. Domingo Obiacoro paid
were likewise required to submit documents, such as bio-data, the balance of P10,000.00 to the accused Nimfa Bodozo in the
birth certificates, marriage contracts, clearances and house of the accused Joey Bodozo later signed and issued a
certificates of previous employment. Such acts constitute offer Receipt for the said amount of P20,000.00.
or promise for employment abroad with a fee. The accused Joey Bodozo demanded from Angelino Obiacoro
the payment of P20,000.00 in connection with the latter's
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby application for employment abroad. Angelino Obiacoro gave to
rendered finding accused Abelardo Avendaño guilty beyond the accused Joey Bodozo the amount of P10,000.00 in two (2)
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment installments on different occasion for which the accused Joey
committed in large scale, thus constituting economic sabotage. Bodozo later signed and issued a Receipt.
44
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
45
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
ISSUE: RATIO:
Whether the elements of illegal recruitment in a large scale are No. It is settled that the essential elements of the crime of
exist in the present case. illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages
in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under
RATIO: Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of
the Labor Code; (2) accused has not complied with the
Yes, the information filed against accused-appellant sufficiently
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
shows that it is for the crime of illegal recruitment in large
particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an
scale. Under the Labor Code, the essential elements of the
authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are as follows: (1)
overseas; and (3) accused commits the same against three (3)
the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of
or more persons, individually or a group. In the present case,
workers, as defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited
appellant's active participation in the recruitment process of
activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused has
complainants belies her claim of innocence. Complainants'
not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of
recruitment was initiated by appellant during her initial
Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the
meeting with Romeo Paguio. She gave the impression to
securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy
Romeo Paguio and the complainants that her cohort, Rosa
workers, whether locally or overseas; and (3) accused commits
Abrero, could send workers for employment abroad. She
the same against three or more persons, individually or as a
introduced Rosa Abrero to Romeo Paguio. Both women
group. It alleges that accused-appellant, knowing fully well
assured the departure of complainants to Taiwan within one
that she was not a duly licensed job recruiter, falsely
month from payment of the placement fee of P40,000.00 per
represented that she could secure employment as domestic
person. They even claimed that complainants would work as
helpers abroad for the four complainants. Accused-appellant
factory workers for a monthly salary of $850.00 per person.
promised the four complainants employment as domestic
Moreover, it was appellant who informed Romeo Paguio that
helpers in Kuwait. All the essential elements of the crime of
complainants' scheduled trip to Taiwan would be on October
illegal recruitment in large scale, which we have enumerated
10, 1991, instead of the original departure date of September
above, are present in this case.
25, 1991, due to some problems on their visas and travel
documents. Hence, the elements of illegal recruitment are
RULING:
present.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANITA BAUTISTA y PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NELIA CORONACION
LATOJA y NOQUE and EDUARDO AQUINO y AQUINO
G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 G.R. No. 97845 September 29, 1994
FACTS:
FACTS:
Accused Anita Bautista approached Romeo Paguio and offered
The accused representing to have the capacity to contract,
job openings abroad. At that time, Paguio had relatives who
enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad,
were interested to work abroad. Bautista introduced Paguio to
recruit and promise employment in Saudi Arabia to the five
Abrico as a person who could facilitate immediate employment
persons without first having secured the required license or
in Taiwan. Abrero informed him that the applicants could leave
authority from the Ministry of Labor. The trial court found
for Taiwan within a period of one-month from the payment of
Coronacion and Aquino guilty as charged and the prosecution
placement fees and she promised Paguio and complainants
likewise proved Coronacion and Eduardo do not have any
that the latter could leave for Taiwan before September 25,
license or authority from POEA to recruit workers for overseas
1991, but they failed. Paguio secured a certification From
employment.
POEA attesting that Bautista and Abrero are not licensed or
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment hence,
ISSUE:
complaining about their being victims of illegal recruitment by
Abrero and Bautista.
Whether the accused are liable for the large recruitment in a
large scale.
ISSUE:
46
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or more
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) persons, individually or as a group. In this case, the accused
commits the same against three or more persons, individually cannot feign innocence of the illegal recruitment by claiming
or as a group. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a that she too was a victim of the illegal recruitment of Dr.
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more Andres. Firstly, all the transactions from the beginning to the
persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in end were handled by the accused. In fact, none of the
carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or complainants ever met said Dr. Andres. Secondly, if the
scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal accused were a victim of Dr. Andres and she really felt
recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed aggrieved, she could have filed a case against her for illegal
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. In recruitment. Well-founded belief that said Dr. Andres is a
the case at bench, the appellants are neither licensees nor fictitious person conjured by the accused to support her
holders of any authority from POEA to engage in recruitment nefarious scheme in the recruitment process.
and placement activities as evidenced by a certification of the
said agency. It was likewise established that the private RULING:
complainants were unaware of the appellants' lack of authority
when they transacted business with them. It was only later, WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court
upon inquiry at POEA, that they discovered the appellants' lack of Makati, Metro Manila, in Criminal Case No. 91-6443 is
of authority. Finally, the number of private complainants, hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the above modification decreeing
certainly more than three, is beyond dispute. the restitution of the amounts the accused had obtained from
the complainants. Costs against accused Carmelita Puertollano
RULING: Comia. SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA v.
court is hereby AFFIRMED, with the sole modification that the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRANS-
penalty properly imposable and hereby imposed is life GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. and ESSO
imprisonment and not reclusion perpetua. Costs against INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CO., LTD.
appellants. SO ORDERED. GR. No. 110524. July 29, 2002
DAVIDE, JR., J.: Millares was employed by ESSO through its local manning
agency as promoted as chief engineer until he retired. Millares
FACTS: applied for leave of absence for one month which was
approved then he wrote to the operations manager for his
Carmelita Puertollano Comia was charged with illegal intention to avail the optional retirement. But ESSO denied the
recruitment in large scale. The complaining victims were retirement because he was employed on a contractual basis
testified in open court that the accused defrauded each of and he did not comply with requirement for claiming benefits
them of sizeable cash on the assurance that they would be under CEIP. ESSO advised Millares that in view of his absence
given janitorial jobs in Hongkong. To the mind of the Court, without leave, which is equivalent to abandonment of his
Dr. Zenaida Andres is a non-existent person invented by the position, he had been dropped from the roster of crew
accused and when the complainants started to show their members. On the other hand, Lagda applied for a leave of
impatience to the accused, they waited for the Dra. Andres to absence which was approved by Trans-global and advised him
come, after which they agreed to call her but the telephone to report for re-assignment but Trans-global denied availing
number they dialed turned out to be McDonald's. After trial on the optional retirement plan on the same grounds as with
the merits, the court promulgated its decision finding the Millares. Millares and Lagda filed a complaint-affidavit before
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense POEA for illegal dismissal and non-payment of employee
charged and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life benefits against ESSO and Trans-global. POEA dismissed the
imprisonment and to pay a fine. complaint for lack of merit, which was affirmed by NLRC.
ISSUE: ISSUE:
Whether the accused may be held liable for the illegal Whether Petitioners may be considered as regular employees
recruitment. despite of being seafarers.
RATIO: RATIO:
Yes. Under the Labor Code, Illegal recruitment is deemed No. From the foregoing cases, it is clear that seafarers are
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) considered contractual employees. Their employment is
or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one governed by the contracts they sign every time they are
another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract
enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale when a period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280
person (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or determined at the time of engagement of the employee or
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
47
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
48
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
49
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
RULING: ISSUE:
SEC. 10. MONEY CLAIMS. - Notwithstanding any provision of Whether or not petitioners be held liable considering that the
law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor contract specifically stipulates that respondent‗s employment
Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and shall be governed by the Civil Service Law and Regulations of
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) Kuwait.
calendar days after filing of the complaint, the claims arising
out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any RATIO DECIDENDI:
law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and Doctrine of Procesual Presumption: The party invoking the
other forms of damages. application of a foreign law has the burden proving the law,
The liability of the principal/employer and the otherwise the same shall be presumed as similar to ours.
recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this
section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be RULING:
incorporated in the contract for overseas employment and shall
be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance Court denied the petition. According to RA 8042:
bond to be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as ―The obligations covenanted in the recruitment agreement
provided by law, shall be answerable for all money claims or entered into by and between the local agent and its foreign
damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the principal are not coterminous with the term of such agreement
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the so that if either or both of the parties decide to end the
corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may agreement,the responsibilities of such parties towards the
be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the contracted employees under the agreement do not at all end,
corporation or partnership for the aforesaid claims and but the same extends up to and until the expiration of the
damages. (Emphasis supplied) employment contracts of the employees recruited and
In Sto. Tomas v. Salac, we had the opportunity to pass upon employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. In
the constitutionality of this provision. We have thus international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law
maintained: applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the
The key issue that Gumabay, et al. present is whether or not foreign law. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if
the 2nd paragraph of Section 10, R.A. 8042, which holds the pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is
corporate directors, officers, and partners of recruitment and the same as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in
placement agencies jointly and solidarily liable for money determining the issues presented before us.
claims and damages that may be adjudged against the latter
agencies, is unconstitution. ANTONIO M. SERRANO, Petitioner,
vs.
ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION, AMALIA G. IKDAL and Gallant MARITIME SERVICES, INC. and MARLOW
MINISTRY OF PUBLIC HEALTH-KUWAIT Petitioners, NAVIGATION CO., INC., Respondents.
vs. G.R. No. 167614 March 24, 2009
MA. JOSEFA ECHIN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 178551 October 11, 2010 FACTS:
CARPIO MORALES, J.: Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and
Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd. (respondents) under a Philippine
FACTS: Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved
Contract of Employment with the following terms and
Respondent Echin was hired by petitioner ATCI in behalf of its conditions:
principal co-petitioner, Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait, for Duration of contract 12 months
the position of medical technologist under a two-year contract Position Chief Officer
with a monthly salary of US$1,200.00.Within a year, Basic monthly salary US$1,400.00
Respondent was terminated for not passing the probationary Hours of work 48.0 hours per week
period which was under the Memorandum of Agreement. Overtime US$700.00 per month
Ministry denied respondent‗s request and she returned to the Vacation leave with pay 7.00 days per month
Philippines shouldering her own fair. Respondent filed with the On March 19, 1998, the date of his departure, petitioner was
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for
against ATCI for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter rendered the position of Second Officer with a monthly salary of
judgment in favor of respondent and ordered ATCI to pay US$1,000.00, upon the assurance and representation of
her$3,600.00, her salary for the three months unexpired respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of
portion of the contract. ATCI appealed Labor Arbiter‗s decision, April 1998. Respondents did not deliver on their promise
however, NLRC affirmed the latter‗s decision and denied to make petitioner Chief Officer. Hence, petitioner refused to
petitioner ATCI‗s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the
appealed to the Court Appeals contending that their principal Philippines on May 26, 1998. Petitioner‘s employment contract
being a foreign government agency is immune from suit, and was for a period of 12 months or from March 19, 1998 up to
as such, immunity extended to them. Appellate Court affirmed March 19, 1999, but at the time of his repatriation on May 26,
NLRC‗s decision. It noted that under the law, a private 1998, he had served only two (2) months and seven (7) days
employment agency shall assume all responsibilities for the of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of nine (9)
implementation of the contract of employment of an overseas months and twenty-three (23) days.
worker; hence, it can be sued jointly and severally with the Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a Complaint against
foreign principal for any violation of the recruitment agreement respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his
or contract of employment. money claims in the total amount of US$26,442.73. The LA
Petitioner‗s motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this rendered a Decision, declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal
present petition. and awarding him monetary benefits, declaring that the
dismissal of the complainant (petitioner) by the respondents in
the above-entitled case was illegal and the respondents are
hereby ordered to pay the complainant [petitioner], jointly and
severally, in Philippine Currency, based on the rate of
50
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
exchange prevailing at the time of payment, the amount of standard of strict judicial scrutiny, for it perceives in the
EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY U.S. DOLLARS subject clause a suspect classification prejudicial to OFWs.
(US $8,770.00), representing the complainant‘s salary for three Upon cursory reading, the subject clause appears facially
(3) months of the unexpired portion of the aforesaid contract neutral, for it applies to all OFWs. However, a closer
of employment. examination reveals that the subject clause has a
Respondents appealed to the National Labor Relations discriminatory intent against, and an invidious impact on OFWs
Commission (NLRC) to question the finding of the LA that The subject clause does not state or imply any definitive
petitioner was illegally dismissed. The NLRC modified the LA governmental purpose; and it is for that precise reason
Decision and corrected the LA‘s computation of the lump-sum that the clause violates not just petitioner‘s right to equal
salary awarded to petitioner by reducing the applicable salary protection, but also her right to substantive due process under
rate from US$2,590.00 to US$1,400.00 because R.A. No. 8042 Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.
―does not provide for the award of overtime pay, which should 2. Second Issue
be proven to have been actually performed, and for vacation It is plain that prior to R.A. No. 8042, all OFWs, regardless of
leave pay. contract periods or the unexpired portions thereof, were
Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but this treated alike in terms of the computation of their monetary
time he questioned the constitutionality of the subject clause. benefits in case of illegal dismissal. Their claims were
The NLRC denied the motion. subjected to a uniform rule of computation: their basic salaries
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, reiterating multiplied by the entire unexpired portion of their employment
the constitutional challenge against the subject clause. After contracts.
initially dismissing the petition on a technicality, the CA The enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042
eventually gave due course to it, as directed by this Court in its introduced a differentiated rule of computation of the money
Resolution which granted the petition for certiorari,filed by claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their employment
petitioner. periods, in the process singling out one category whose
The CA affirmed the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the contracts have an unexpired portion of one year or more and
applicable salary rate; however, the CA skirted the subjecting them to the peculiar disadvantage of having their
constitutional issue raised by petitioner. monetary awards limited to their salaries for 3 months or for
His Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the CA, the unexpired portion thereof, whichever is less, but all the
petitioner brings his cause to this Court on the following while sparing the other category from such prejudice, simply
grounds: because the latter‘s unexpired contracts fall short of one year.
The Court of Appeals and the labor tribunals have decided the Prior to R.A. No. 8042, a uniform system of computation of the
case in a way not in accord with applicable decision of the monetary awards of illegally dismissed OFWs was in place.
Supreme Court involving similar issue of granting unto the This uniform system was applicable even to local workers with
migrant worker back wages equal to the unexpired portion of fixed-term employment.
his contract of employment instead of limiting it to three (3) The subject clause does not state or imply any definitive
months. governmental purpose; and it is for that precise reason that
Even without considering the constitutional limitations [of] Sec. the clause violates not just petitioner‘s right to equal
10 of Republic Act No. 8042, the Court of Appeals gravely protection, but also her right to substantive due process under
erred in law in excluding from petitioner‘s award the overtime Section 1, Article III of the Constitution.
pay and vacation pay provided in his contract since under the The subject clause being unconstitutional, petitioner is entitled
contract they form part of his salary. to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of nine months
The Court now takes up the full merit of the petition mindful of and 23 days of his employment contract, pursuant to law and
the extreme importance of the constitutional question raised jurisprudence prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8042.
therein.
3. Third Issue
ISSUES: Petitioner contends that his overtime and leave pay should
form part of the salary basis in the computation of his
Whether Section 10 (par 5) of RA 8042 is unconstitutional monetary award, because these are fixed benefits that have
Proper computation of the Lump-sum salary to be been stipulated into his contract.
awarded to petitioner by reason of his illegal dismissal Petitioner is mistaken.
Whether the overtime and leave pay should form part of The word salaries in Section 10(5) does not include overtime
the salary basis in the computation of his monetary award and leave pay. For seafarers like petitioner, DOLE Department
Order No. 33, series 1996, provides a Standard Employment
Contract of Seafarers, in which salary is understood as the
basic wage, exclusive of overtime, leave pay and other
RULING: bonuses; whereas overtime pay is compensation for all work
―performed‖ in excess of the regular eight hours, and holiday
1. The answer is in the affirmative. pay is compensation for any work ―performed‖ on designated
Section 1, Article III of the Constitution guarantees: rest days and holidays.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without In the same vein, the claim for the day‘s leave pay for the
due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal unexpired portion of the contract is unwarranted since the
protection of the law. same is given during the actual service of the seamen.
Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII accord all WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Petition. The subject
members of the labor sector, without distinction as to place of clause ―or for three months for every year of the unexpired
deployment, full protection of their rights and welfare. term, whichever is less‖ in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of
To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing Republic Act No. 8042 is DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and
constitutional provisions translate to economic security and the December 8, 2004 Decision and April 1, 2005 Resolution of
parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by the Court of Appeals are MODIFIED to the effect that
workers of similar category, while all monetary obligations petitioner is AWARDED his salaries for the entire unexpired
should be borne by them in equal degree; none should be portion of his employment contract consisting of nine months
denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or and 23 days computed at the rate of US$1,400.00 per month.
spared the burden imposed on, others in like circumstances.
Imbued with the same sense of ―obligation to afford protection
to labor,‖ the Court in the present case also employs the
51
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
52
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
pay is compensation for any work performed on designated This prerogative, however, should not be abused. It is
rest days and holidays. "tempered with the employee's right to security of
tenure."Workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, process before termination. They may not be removed from
INC., Petitioner, v. JOY C. CABILES, Respondent. employment without a valid or just cause as determined by law
G.R. No. 170139 August 05, 2014 and without going through the proper procedure.
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency claims that on July 14, (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by
1997, a certain Mr. Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy, the employee of the lawful orders of his employer
without prior notice, that she was terminated and that "she or representative in connection with his work;
should immediately report to their office to get her salary and
passport." She was asked to "prepare for immediate (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of
repatriation." his duties;
Joy claims that she was told that from June 26 to July 14,
1997, she only earned a total of NT$9,000. According to her, (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the
Wacoal deducted NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to Manila. trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;
Then Joy filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations
Commission against petitioner and Wacoal. She claimed that (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the
she was illegally dismissed. She asked for the return of her employee against the person of his employer or any
placement fee, the withheld amount for repatriation costs, immediate member of his family or his duly
payment of her salary for 23 months as well as moral and authorized representatives; and
exemplary damages. She identified Wacoal as Sameer
Overseas Placement Agency's foreign principal. (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
53
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
Labor Code does not empower the Secretary to determine if agreement for the purpose. With the expiration of the first
the employment of an alien would redound to national interest. agreement and the retention of the employees, Atlanta had, to
all intents and purposes, recognized the completion of their
ISSUE: training and their acquisition of a regular employee status. This
reality is highlighted by the CA finding that the respondents
Whether the Secretary of Labor acted with grave abuse of occupied positions such as machine operator, scale man and
discretion in revoking Cone‘s Alien Employment Permit extruder operator - tasks that are usually necessary and
desirable in Atlanta‘s usual business or trade as manufacturer
RACIO DECIDENDI: of plastic building materials. These tasks and their nature
characterized the four as regular employees under Article 280
The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of Labor did not of the Labor Code. Thus, when they were dismissed without
act with grave abuse of discretion in revoking Cone‘s Alien just or authorized cause, without notice, and without the
Employment Permit. GMC‘s claim that hiring of a foreign coach opportunity to be heard, their dismissal was illegal under the
is an employer‘s prerogative has no legal basis. Under Section law.
40 of the Labor Code, an employer seeking employment of an On the supposed compromise agreement they entered into,
alien must first obtain an employment permit from the Costales, Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun refuse to accept the
Department of Labor. The permissive language used indicates agreements‘ validity, contending that the company‘s
that the authority granted involves the exercise of discretion apprenticeship program is merely a ploy ―to continually deprive
on the part of the issuing authority. them of their rightful wages and benefits which are due them
GMC‘s right to choose whom to employ is limited by the as regular employees.‖
statutory requirement of an employment permit. The Labor
Code empowers the Labor Secretary to determine as to the RULING:
availability of the services of a ―person in the Philippines who is
competent, able and willing at the time of the application to WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the
perform the services for which an alien is desired‖ and DOLE is petition for lack of merit. The assailed decision and resolution
the agency vested with jurisdiction to determine the question of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against the
of availability of local workers. petitioner Atlanta Industries, Inc.
ISSUE: The Supreme Court ruled that TESDA‘s funds are public in
character, hence exempt from attachment or garnishment. It
Whether the respondents are employees of Atlanta and thus agrees with TESDA that it is not engaged in business, and
entitled to their money claims there is nothing in the records to show that its purchase of the
PVC cards from PROVI is for a business purpose. While TESDA
RATIO DECIDENDI: admits that it will charge the trainees with a fee for the PVC
cards, it claims that this fee is only to recover their costs and is
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employees. Even if we not intended for profit. TESDA is an instrumentality of the
recognize the company‘s need to train its employees through government undertaking governmental functions.
apprenticeship, we can only consider the first apprenticeship Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the
54
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions deemed a regular employee performing the job of a "fish
and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to cleaner." Clearly, the job of a "fish cleaner" is necessary in
be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from petitioner‘s business as a tuna and sardines factory. Under
their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law. Article 280 of the Labor Code, an employment is deemed
regular where the employee has been engaged to perform
RULING: activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the
petition filed by petitioner Professional Video, Inc., and AFFIRM RULING:
the Court of Appeals‘ Decision dated July 23, 2002, and
Resolution of September 27, 2002, in CA-G.R. SP No. 67599. WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision dated 12 November
Costs against the petitioner. 2001 and the Resolution dated 5 April 2002 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60379.
CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and GLORIA C. PALAD, NITTO ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
Respondents. RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROBERTO CAPILI,
G.R. No. 152894 August 17, 2007 respondents.
G.R. No. 114337 September 29, 1995
CARPIO, J.:
KAPUNAN, J.:
FACTS:
FACTS:
Petitioner hired Gloria C. Palad as "fish cleaner" at petitioner‘s
tuna and sardines factory. Palad signed on an apprenticeship Nitto Enterprises hired Capili as an apprentice machinist for a
agreement with petitioner and received an apprentice period of 6 months with a daily wage rate of P66.75 which was
allowance. Petitioner submitted its apprenticeship program for 75% of the applicable minimum wage. While working, Capili
approval to the TESDA of the DOLE. Months after, TESDA accidentally hit and injured the leg of an office secretary. On
approved petitioner‘s apprenticeship program. Palad received a the same day after office hours, he entered a workshop which
rating of "needs improvement" based on her performance and was not his work station and then operated a machine without
numerous tardiness and absences. As a consequence, authority and in the process injured his left thumb. Petitioner
petitioner issued a termination notice to Palad. Palad then filed covered the expenses for his medication. He was asked to
a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and resign in a letter. A Quitclaim and Release was executed by
non-payment of pro-rated 13th month pay for the year 1997. Capili in favor of petitioner. Capili filed a complaint for illegal
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Palad's complaint, however dismissal and payment of other monetary benefits. However,
ordered Century Canning to pay the complainant representing the Labor Arbiter held that the termination was valid. The
her last salary and prorated 13th month pay. NLRC affirmed NLRC reversed the same and declared Capili as a regular
LA's decision. Upon denial of Palad‘s motion for employee, thus was illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter now
reconsideration, she filed a special civil action for certiorari ruled for the reinstatement of Capili and his backwages.
with the CA. CA set aside the NLRC's decision on the ground Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
that the apprenticeship agreement was not valid and binding
because it was executed more than two months before the ISSUE:
TESDA approved petitioner‘s apprenticeship program.
Whether Capili is a regular employee or an apprentice
ISSUE:
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Whether Palad was an apprentice of Century Canning
Corporation The Supreme Court ruled that he is a regular employee.
Petitioner did not comply with the requirements of the law.
RATIO DECIDENDI: The apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private
respondent was executed on May 28, 1990 and on the same
The Supreme Court cited its previous ruling in the case of Nitto date, an apprenticeship program was prepared by petitioner
Enterprises vs. NLRC that Article 61 of the Labor Code held and submitted to the DOLE. However, the apprenticeship
that an apprenticeship program should first be approved by agreement was filed only on June 7, 1990.
the DOLE before an apprentice may be hired, otherwise the It is mandated under Article 61 of the Labor Code that
person hired will be considered a regular employee. Prior apprenticeship agreements entered into by the employer and
approval by the DOLE of the proposed apprenticeship program apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with the
is, therefore, a condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor
apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into. The act and Employment. Absence of such renders the apprenticeship
of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the DOLE is agreement no force and effect.
a preliminary step towards its final approval and does not Prior approval by the DOLE of the proposed apprenticeship
instantaneously give rise to an employer-apprentice program is, therefore, a condition sine quo non before an
relationship. Hence, since the apprenticeship agreement apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into. The act
between petitioner and private respondent has no force and of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the DOLE is
effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship program duly a preliminary step towards its final approval and does not
approved by the DOLE. instantaneously give rise to an employer-apprentice
Since Palad is not considered an apprentice because the relationship. He should rightly be considered as a regular
apprenticeship agreement was enforced before the TESDA‘s employee of petitioner as defined by Article 280 of the Labor
approval of petitioner‘s apprenticeship program, Palad is
55
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
Code and pursuant to the constitutional mandate to protect disability did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tasks
the rights of workers and promote their welfare. assigned to them.
Section 5 of the Magna Carta provides that no disabled person
RULING: shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable
employment. Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights
WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discretion committed by of qualified able-bodied persons, they are thus covered by
public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, the Article 280 of the Labor Code which provides for the regular
appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. and casual employment. The test whether an employee is
regular as laid down in De Leon vs. NLRC is whether the
MARITES BERNARDO, ET. Al, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL particular activity performed by the employee is usually
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FAR EAST BANK necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents. employer.
G.R. No. 122917 July 12, 1999
RULING:
PANGANIBAN, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby
FACTS: GRANTED. The June 20, 1995 Decision and the August 4, 1995
Resolution of the NLRC are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioners numbering 43 are deaf–mutes who were hired on Respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company is hereby
various periods from 1988 to 1993 by respondent Far East ORDERED to pay back wages and separation pay to each of
Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and Counters through a the following twenty-seven (27) petitioners, namely, Marites
uniformly worded agreement called "Employment Contract for Bernardo, Elvira Go Diamante, Rebecca E. David, David P.
Handicapped Workers", among which included that the Pascual, Raquel Estiller, Albert Hallare, Edmund M. Cortez,
EMPLOYEE shall undergo a training period of 1 month, after Joselito O. Agdon, George P. Ligutan Jr., Liliberh Q. Marmolejo,
which the BANK shall determine whether or not he/she should Jose E. Sales, Isabel Mamauag, Violeta G. Montes, Albino
be allowed to finish the remaining term of this Contract. Tecson, Melody V. Gruela, Bernadeth D. Agero, Cynthia de
Subsequently, they were dismissed. Vera, Lani R. Cortez, Ma. Isabel B. Concepcion, Margaret
Petitioners maintain that they should be considered regular Cecilia Canoza, Thelma Sebastian, Ma. Jeanette Cervantes,
employees, because their task as money sorters and counters Jeannie Ramil, Rozaida Pascual, Pinky Baloloa, Elizabeth
was necessary and desirable to the business of respondent Ventura and Grace S. Pardo. The NLRC is hereby directed to
bank. They further allege that their contracts served merely to compute the exact amount due each of said employees,
preclude the application of Article 280 and to bar them from pursuant to existing laws and regulations, within fifteen days
becoming regular employees. Private respondent, on the other from the finality of this Decision. No costs.
hand, submits that petitioners were hired only as ―special
workers and should not in any way be considered as part of "BROTHERHOOD" LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE
the regular complement of the Bank‖ and were only hired due PHILIPPINES (BLUM), ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON.
to "pakiusap". They were told from the start, "with the RONALDO B. ZAMORA, PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR
assistance of government representatives," that they could not LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HON.
become regular employees. They were ―special‖ workers under AMADO G. INCIONG, UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR,
Article 80 of the Labor Code. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, GENARO OLIVES,
ENRIQUE CAMAHORT, FEDERICO OÑATE, ERNESTO
ISSUE: VILLANUEVA, ANTONIO BOCALING and GODOFREDO
CUETO, respondents.
Whether petitioners are regular employees G.R. No. L-48645 January 7, 1987
The Supreme Court ruled that the facts, viewed in light of the FACTS:
Labor Code and the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons,
indubitably show that the petitioners, except sixteen of them, The petitioners worked exclusively at the San Miguel
should be deemed regular employees. As such, they have Corporation (SMC) as pahinantes or kargadors for almost 7
acquired legal rights that this Court is duty-bound to protect years. Their work was neither regular nor continuous,
and uphold, not as a matter of compassion but as a depending on the volume of bottles to be loaded and
consequence of law and justice. unloaded, as well as the business activity of the company.
The uniform employment contracts of the petitioners stipulated However, work exceeded the eight-hour day and sometimes,
that they shall be trained for a period of one month, after necessitated work on Sundays and holidays and for this, they
which the employer shall determine whether or not they were neither paid overtime nor compensation. BLUM filed a
should be allowed to finish the 6-month term of the contract. complaint against SMC and its officers for unfair labor practice
Furthermore, the employer may terminate the contract at any and illegal dismissal. It was alleged that respondents ordered
time for a just and reasonable cause. Unless renewed in the individual complainants to disaffiliate from the complainant
writing by the employer, the contract shall automatically expire union; and that management dismissed the individual
at the end of the term. complainants when they insisted on their union membership.
The renewal of the contracts of the handicapped workers and Respondents denied the same contending that complainants
the hiring of others lead to the conclusion that their tasks were are not and have never been employees of respondent
beneficial and necessary to the bank. More important, these company but employees of the independent contractor; that
facts show that they were qualified to perform the respondent company has never had control over the means
responsibilities of their positions. In other words, their and methods followed by the independent contractor. The
Labor Arbiter found for complainants which was concurred in
56
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
by the NLRC. On appeal, the Secretary set aside the NLRC moonlighting, sabotage and breach of trust and confidence
ruling, stressing the absence of an employer-employee against her, she resigned from the company unfortunately the
relationship. car that she had was sold to another employee. Further, she
was never paid from her money claims. The petitioner
ISSUE: contended that the respondent had no right to the refund of
her car loan payments because under the terms it expressly
provided that in the event of resignation during the effectivity
Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between
of said agreement, her car loan payments would be forfeited in
the workers and San Miguel Corporation
favor of Grandteq, and Grandteq would regain possession of
the car. As to the money claims, Margallo was not entitled to
RATIO DECIDENDI: sales commission because the computation should be based on
actual collections within 180 days from invoice date which she
The Supreme Court ruled that there exists an employer- failed to achieve. Hence, the respondent filed a complaint to
employee relationship in this case. In determining the the Labor Arbiter.
existence of an employer-employee relationship, the elements
that are generally considered are the following: (a) the ISSUE/S:
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment
of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE TERMS IN THE CAR LOAN
power to control the employee with respect to the means and AGREEMENT IS VALID?
2. WHETHER OR NOT TMS. MARGALLO IS ENTITLED TO
methods by which the work is to be accomplished. It is the
MONEY CLAIMS?
called "control test" that is the most important element.
The records fail to show that SMC entered into mere oral
RATIO:
agreements of employment with the workers. Considering the
length of time that the petitioners have worked with the The contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
company, there is justification to conclude that they were clauses, terms and conditions as they want, and their
engaged to perform activities necessary in the usual business agreement would have the force of law between them.
or trade and the petitioners are, therefore regular employees. However, those terms and conditions agreed upon must not be
Despite past shutdowns of the glass plant, the workers contrary to law, morals, customs, public policy or public order.
promptly returned to their jobs. The term of the petitioner‘s Precisely, the law overrides such conditions which are
employment appears indefinite and the continuity and prejudicial to the interest of the worker. The law affords
habituality of the petitioner‘s work bolsters the claim of an protection to an employee, and it will not countenance any
employee status. attempt to subvert its spirit and intent. The sheer inequality
that characterizes employer-employee relations, where the
The existence of an independent contractor relationship is
scales generally tip against the employee, often scarcely
generally established by the following criteria: "whether or not
provides him real and better options. Moreover, in
the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts
nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation
duration of the relationship; the right to assign the of agreements and writing should be resolved in the former‘s
performance of a specified piece of work; the control and favor
supervision of the work to another; the employer's power with In cases involving money claims of employees, the employer
respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's has the burden of proving that the employees did receive their
workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the wages and benefits and that the same were paid in accordance
premises tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, with law.
manner and terms of payment". None of the above criteria
exists in the case at bar. RULING:
The court held that the said provisions plainly are contrary to
RULING:
the fundamental principles of justice and fairness. It must be
remembered that Margallo herself paid for the down payment
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is and her share in the monthly amortization of the car. The
GRANTED. The San Miguel Corporation is hereby ordered to principle that no person may unjustly enrich oneself at the
REINSTATE petitioners, with three (3) years backwages. expense of another (Nemo cum alteris detrimento locupletari
However, where reinstatement is no longer possible, the potest) is embodied in Article 22 of the New Civil Code.
respondent SMC is ordered to pay the petitioners separation
pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service. SANDIGAN SAVINGS and LOAN BANK, INC., and
SANDIGAN REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
GRANDTEQ INDUSTRIAL STEEL PRODUCTS, INC. and petitioners, vs.
ABELARDO M. GONZALES, Petitioners, vs. EDNA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and
MARGALLO, Respondent. ANITA M. JAVIER, respondents.
G.R. No. 181393 July 28, 2009 G.R. No. 112877 February 26, 1996
FACTS FACTS:
Grandteq, the petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in Private respondent Anita M. Javier worked as a realty sales
the business of selling welding electrodes, alloy steels, agent of the petitioner Sandigan Realty Development
aluminum and copper alloys. It employed Edna Margallo, Corporation (Sandigan Realty). Their agreement was that
respondent as Sales Engineer. As an employee, the respondent Javier would receive a 5% commission for every sale, or if no
availed of the car loan program offered to her by the sale was made, she would receive a monthly allowance of
petitioner. She paid the downpayment and the amortization of
P500,00. Subsequently, Javier was hired as a marketing
the car from her own pocket. However, due to alleged
57
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
collector of petitioner Sandigan Savings and Loan Bank conducted a performance evaluation of CSMG personnel and
(Sandigan Banks) by Angel Andan, the President of both the those who garnered the highest ratings were favorably
Sandigan Bank and Sandigan Realty. On 20 April 1990, Javier recommended to SNMI. Astorga landed last in the performance
was advised by Angel Andan not to report for work anymore. evaluation, thus, she was not recommended by SMART.
This in effect was a notice of dismissal. Despite the notice, SMART, nonetheless, offered her a supervisory position in the
respondent kept showing to work until she left because she Customer Care Department, but she refused the offer because
could no longer find her table. Hence, the complaint of illegal the position carried lower salary rank and rate. The termination
dismissal and requesting for reinstatement. of her employment prompted Astorga to file a Complaint for
illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries and other benefits
ISSUE: with prayer for moral and exemplary damages against SMART.
She claimed that abolishing CSMG and, consequently,
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE terminating her employment was illegal for it violated her right
RELATIONSHIP EXISTED? to security of tenure. She also posited that it was illegal for an
employer, like SMART, to contract out services which will
RATIO: displace the employees, especially if the contractor is an in-
house agency.
In determining the existence of an employer-employee SMART responded that there was valid termination. It argued
relationship, the following elements are generally considered: that Astorga was dismissed by reason of redundancy, which is
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the an authorized cause for termination of employment, and the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the dismissal was effected in accordance with the requirements of
employer's power to control the employee with respect to the the Labor Code. The redundancy of Astorga‘s position was the
means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. result of the abolition of CSMG and the creation of a
specialized and more technically equipped SNMI, which is a
RULING: valid and legitimate exercise of management prerogative.
The court held that private respondent was not a regular ISSUE:
employee of Sandigan Realty Development Corporation but of
the Sandigan Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL OF ASTORGA WAS VALID?
As it appears that Sandigan Realty had no control over the
conduct of Javier as a realty sales agent since its only concern RATIO:
or interest was in the result of her work and not in how it was
achieved, there cannot now be any doubt that Javier was not Article 283 of the Labor Code clearly provides:
an employee, much less a regular employee of the Sandigan Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. — The
Realty. Hence, she cannot be entitled to the right to security of employer may also terminate the employment of any employee
tenure nor to backwages and separation pay as a consequence due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy,
of her separation therefrom. Evidently, the legal relation of retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of
Javier to the Sandigan Realty can be that of an independent operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the
closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of
contractor, where the control of the contracting party is only
this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the
with respect to the result of the work, as distinguished from an
Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month
employment relationship where the person rendering service is before the intended date thereof
under the control of the hirer with respect to the details and
manner of performance RULING:
However, private respondent Anita Javier is considered a
regular employee of Sandigan Banks since the four elements of The court held that the dismissal of Astorga was valid. The
an employee-employer relationship are present, so by virtue of organizational realignment introduced by SMART, which
her employment status, is, under the law entitled to security of culminated in the abolition of CSMG/FSD and termination of
tenure, which means that she has the right to continue in Astorga‘s employment was an honest effort to make SMART‘s
employment until the same is terminated under conditions sales and marketing departments more efficient and
required by Article 279 of the Labor Code. competitive.
Indeed, the labor law has inclined towards the worker and
SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., petitioner, vs. REGINA upheld his cause in most of his conflicts with his employer.
M. ASTORGA, respondent.
This favored treatment is consonant with the social justice
G.R. No. 148132 January 28, 2008
policy of the Constitution. But while tilting the scales of justice
in favor of workers, the fundamental law also guarantees the
NACHURA, J.:
right of the employer to reasonable returns for his
investment. In this light, we must acknowledge the prerogative
FACTS:
of the employer to adopt such measures as will promote
greater efficiency, reduce overhead costs and enhance
Regina M. Astorga was employed by respondent Smart
prospects of economic gains, albeit always within the
Communications, Incorporated (SMART) as District Sales
framework of existing laws. Accordingly, the Court found the
Manager of the Corporate Sales Marketing Group/ Fixed
dismissal of the employees therein valid and for authorized
Services Division (CSMG/FSD). In February 1998, SMART
cause even if the employer failed to comply with the notice
launched an organizational realignment to achieve more
requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code.
efficient operations. Part of the reorganization was the
outsourcing of the marketing and sales force. Thus, SMART
entered into a joint venture agreement with NTT of Japan, and
formed SMART-NTT Multimedia, Incorporated (SNMI). Since
SNMI was formed to do the sales and marketing work, SMART
abolished the CSMG/FSD, Astorga‘s division. SMART then
58
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
59
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
60
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
ISSUE: Respondent refused the offer and filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. He
RELATIONSHIP EXISTED? stated that the prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal
case is four years from the dismissal of the employee
RATIO: concerned. The Arbiter also ruled that the respondent was not
a regular employee but a mere field personnel and, therefore,
not entitled to service incentive leave, holiday pay, overtime
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee
pay and 13th month pay. He also ruled that respondent failed
relationship, jurisprudence has invariably applied the four-fold to present evidence showing that he was entitled to the money
test, namely: (1) the manner of selection and engagement; (2) claims. On the other hand, the NLRC reversed the Labor
the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the Arbiter‘s decision and ordered Race to be reinstated with full
power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the back wages. It ruled that Race was illegally dismissed and that
power of control. Of these four, the last one is the most the respondent‘s filing of complaint was well-within the four-
important. Under the control test, an employer-employee year prescriptive period. The CA ruled that there was no grave
relationship exists where the person for whom the services are abuse of discretion by the NLRC and ruled that Race did not
performed reserves the right to control not only the end abandon his work.
achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in
reaching that end. ISSUES:
61
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
illegal dismissal cases, the cause of action accrues from the his money claims were denied. On appeal to the NLRC, the
time the employment of the worker was unjustly terminated. petitioner obtained favorable judgment when the tribunal
Thus, the four-year prescriptive period shall be counted and reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiters decision. It upheld
computed from the date of the employee‘s dismissal up to the the existence of an employer-employee relationship, taking
date of the filing of complaint for unlawful termination of into consideration that petitioner worked for the respondent
employment. for a period of two years, which makes him a regular
It is error to conclude that the employment of the respondent employee.
was unjustly terminated on 10 November 1994 because he Respondent Pamplona then instituted a special civil action
was, at that time, still confined at the Specialist Group for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals which
Hospital, Dagupan City, for further treatment of his fractured granted the same and consequently annulled and set aside the
left leg. He must be considered as merely on sick leave at such NLRC decision. It concluded that there was no employer-
time. Likewise, the respondent cannot also be deemed as employee relationship, and that while the respondents
illegally dismissed from work upon his release from the said business required the performance of occasional repairs and
hospital in December 1994 up to December 1997 since the carpentry work, the retention of a carpenter in its payroll was
records show that the respondent still reported for work to the not necessary or desirable in the conduct of its usual business.
petitioner and was granted sick and disability leave by the It added that although the petitioner was an employee of the
petitioner during the same period. The respondent must be former owner of the hacienda, the respondent was not
considered as unjustly terminated from work in January 1998 required to absorb such employees because employment
since this was the first time he was informed by the petitioner contracts are in personam and binding only between the
that he was deemed resigned from his work. During that same parties.
occasion, the petitioner, in fact, tried to convince the
respondent to accept an amount of ₱50,000.00 as a ISSUE:
consolation for his dismissal but the latter rejected it. Thus, it
was only at this time that the respondent‘s cause of action Whether or not an employee-employer relationship existed
accrued. Consequently, the respondent‘s filing of complaint for between the petitioner and the respondent.
illegal dismissal on 1 September 1999 was well within the four-
year prescriptive period. RATIO DECIDENDI:
62
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
appearance‘s sake only. Sevilla earned her own commissions GRAND ASIAN SHIPPING LINES, INC., EDUARDO P.
and did not receive any salary from Tourist World. FRANCISCO and WILLIAM HOW, Petitioners, vs.
The respondent was later informed that Sevilla was connected WILFREDO GALVEZ, JOEL SALES, CRISTITO GRUTA,
with rival firm, and since the branch office was losing its DANILO ARGUELLES, RENATO BATAYOLA, PATRICIO
business, Tourist World considered closing down its office. On FRESMILLO, JOVY NOBLE, EMILIO DOMINICO, BENNY
January 3, 1962, the contract with appellee for the use of the NILMAO, and JOSE AUSTRAL, Respondents.
branch office premises was terminated and while the effectivity G.R. No. 178184 January 29, 2014
thereof was January 31, 1962, the appellees no longer used it.
Because of this, Gabino Canilao, the secretary of Tourist DEL CASTILLO, J.
World, went over to the branch office, and found the
premises locked. Being unable to contact Lina Sevilla, he FACTS:
padlocked the premises on June 4, 1962 to protect the
interests of the Tourist World Service. When neither Petitioner Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc. (GASLI) is a
appellant Sevilla nor any of his employees could domestic corporation engaged in transporting liquified
enter, a complaint was filed by the appellants against petroleum gas from Petron Corporation‘s refinery to its plant
the appellees. Tourist World insisted that Sevilla was a mere and depot. Sometime in January 2000, one of the vessel‘s
employee, being the ―branch manager‖ of its branch office and Oilers, Richard Abis, reported to GASLI‘s Office and Crewing
that she had no say on the lease executed with the private Manager, an alleged illegal activity being committed by
respondent, Noguera. respondents involving the vessel, M/T Dorothy Uno. It was
reported that in about four to five voyages a week, a
ISSUE: substantial volume of fuel oil is unconsumed and stored in the
vessel‘s fuel tanks. However, Gruta, the vessel‘s Chief
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed Engineer, would misdeclare it as consumed fuel in the
between Sevilla and Tourist World Service. Engineer‘s Voyage Reports. Then, the saved fuel oil is
siphoned and sold to other vessels out at sea usually at
RATIO DECIDENDI: nighttime. The respondents would then divide among
themselves the proceeds of the sale.
No employer-employee relationship existed between the As a result of Abis‘ report, an investigation, audit and
parties. Lina Sevilla, was not subject to control by the private examination of the Engineer‘s Voyage Reports was conducted
respondent Tourist World Service, Inc., either as to the result by the petitioner‘s internal auditor. A Certification of
of the enterprise or as to the means used in connection Overstatement of Fuel Oil Consumption was issued, which led
therewith. In the first place, under the contract of lease to the filing of a formal complaint for qualified before the
covering the Tourist Worlds Ermita office, she had bound Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) at Camp
herself insolidum as and for rental payments, an arrangement Crame against respondents. GASLI then placed respondents
that would be like claims of a master-servant relationship. True under preventive suspension, and after conducting
the respondent Court would later minimize her participation in administrative hearings, petitioner company decided to
the lease as one of mere guaranty, that does not make her an terminate respondents from employment. The respondents
employee of Tourist World, since in any case, a true employee except Joel Sales, the vessel‘s Chief Mate, were thus served
cannot be made to part with his own money in pursuance of with notices informing them of their termination for serious
his employer's business, or otherwise, assume any liability misconduct, willful breach of trust, and commission of a crime
thereof. In that event, the parties must be bound by some or offense against their employer.
other relation, but certainly not employment. Respondents and the other dismissed crewmembers filed with
In addition to this, when the branch office was opened, the the NLRC separate complaints for illegal suspension and
same was run by the herein appellant Lina O. Sevilla payable dismissal, underpayment/non-payment of salaries/wages,
to Tourist World Service, Inc. by any airline for any fare overtime pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, holiday
brought in on the effort of Mrs. Lina Sevilla. Under these pay, service incentive leave pay, hazard pay, tax refunds and
circumstances, it cannot be said that Sevilla was under the indemnities for damages and attorney‘s fees against
control of Tourist World Service, Inc. "as to the means used." petitioners. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding the
Sevilla in pursuing the business, obviously relied on her own dismissal of all 21 complainants illegal. However, the NLRC
gifts and capabilities. found that the respondent‘s dismissal was valid, with the
The fact that Sevilla had been designated 'branch manager" exception of Sales. It also struck down the monetary awards
does not make her, ergo, Tourist World's employee. given by the Labor Arbiter. In addition, it also ruled that
Employment is determined by the right-of-control test and Galvez, a ship captain, is considered a managerial employee
certain economic parameters. Titles are weak indicators. not entitled to premium pay for holiday and rest day, holiday
pay and service incentive leave pay.
RULING: Respondents, excluding the other complainants, filed a Petition
for Certiorari with the CA. The CA conformed with the Labor
WHEREFORE, the Decision promulgated on January 23, 1975 Arbiter‘s ruling that petitioners‘ evidence was inadequate to
as well as the Resolution issued on July 31, 1975, by the support the charge of pilferage and justify respondents‘
respondent Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET termination.
ASIDE. The private respondent, Tourist World Service, Inc.,
and Eliseo Canilao, are ORDERED jointly and severally to ISSUES:
indemnify the petitioner, Lina Sevilla, the sum of 25,00.00 as
and for moral damages, the sum of P10,000.00, as and for 1) Whether or not the respondents were illegally
exemplary damages, and the sum of P5,000.00, as and for dismissed.
nominal and/or temperate damages.
Costs against said private respondents. 2) Whether or not Gruta and Galvez are entitled to
holidays pay and their other monetary claims.
63
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
64
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
65
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., petitioner, vs. guards, as well as the award for night salary differentials, is
DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION, ET AL., affirmed. No costs.
respondents.
G.R. No. L-18353 July 31, 1963 ARICA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, respondents.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: G.R. No. 78210. February 28, 1989.
FACTS: PARAS, J.
RULING:
66
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN FACULTY UNION, SIME DARBY PILIPINAS INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL
petitioner, vs. UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN, LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondent.
respondent. G.R. NO. 119205. April 15, 1998.
G.R. No. L-63122. February 20, 1984.
BELLOSILLO, J.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
FACTS:
FACTS:
Prior to the present controversy, all company factory workers
In November and December, 1981, the petitioner‘s members in Marikina including members of private respondent union
were fully paid their regular monthly salaries. However, from worked from 7:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. with a 30 minute paid on
November 7 to December 5, during the semestral break, they call lunch break. Petitioner issued a memorandum to all
were not paid their ECOLA. The private respondent claims that factory-based employees advising all its monthly salaried
the teachers are not entitled thereto because the semestral employees in its Marikina Tire Plant a change in work schedule.
break is not an integral part of the school year and there being By the change in the work schedule and discontinuance of the
no actual services rendered by the teachers during said period, 30-minute paid on call lunch break, private respondent filed a
the principle of "No work, no pay" applies. complaint before the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice,
discrimination and evasion of liability. However, the Labor
ISSUE: Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the change
in the work schedule and the elimination of the 30-minute paid
Whether or not petitioner‘s members are entitled to ECOLA lunch break of the factory workers constituted a valid exercise
during the semestral break. of management prerogative and that the new work schedule,
break time and one-hour lunch break did not have the effect of
RATIO DECIDENDI: diminishing the benefits granted to factory workers as the
working time did not exceed eight hours.
The semestral breaks are in the nature of work interruptions On the other hand, the public respondent declared that the
beyond the employees‘ control. These breaks cannot be new work schedule deprived the employees of the benefits of
considered as absences within the meaning of the law for time-honored company practice of providing its employees a
which deductions may be made from monthly allowances. The 30-minute paid lunch break resulting in an unjust diminution of
"No work, no pay" principle does not apply in the instant case. company privileges prohibited by Art. 100 of the Labor Code,
It is clear from the aforequoted provision of law that it as amended. Hence, this petition.
contemplates a "no work" situation where the employees
voluntarily absent themselves. Petitioners, in the case at bar, ISSUE:
certainly do not, ad voluntatem, absent themselves during
semestral breaks. Rather, they are constrained to take Is the act of management in revising the work schedule of its
mandatory leave from work. employees and discarding their paid lunch break constitutive of
By analogy, we may apply the principle enunciated in the unfair labor practice?
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code to wit, the
principles in determining hours worked [Sec. 4(d)] ―The time RATIO DECIDENDI:
during which an employee is inactive by reason of interruptions
in his work beyond his control shall be considered time either if The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests
the imminence of the resumption of work requires the principally on their employer. In the instant case petitioner, as
employee‘s presence at the place of work or if the interval is the employer, cites as reason for the adjustment the efficient
too brief to be utilized effectively and gainfully in the conduct of its business opeRATIO DECIDENDIns and its
employee‘s own interest.‖ improved production. It RATIO DECIDENDInalizes that while
The semestral break scheduled is an interruption beyond the old work schedule included a 30-minute paid lunch break,
petitioner‘s control. Thus, the semestral break may also be the employees could be called upon to do jobs during that
considered as "hours worked." For this, the teachers are paid period as they were on call.
regular salaries and, for this, they should be entitled to ECOLA. For a full one-hour undisturbed lunch break, the employees
Not only do the teachers continue to work during this short can freely and effectively use this hour not only for eating but
recess but much less do they cease to live for which the cost also for their rest and comfort which are conducive to more
of living allowance is intended. The legal principles of "No efficiency and better performance in their work. Since the
work, no pay; No pay, no ECOLA" must necessarily give way to employees are no longer required to work during this one-hour
the purpose of the law to augment the income of employees to lunch break, there is no more need for them to be
enable them to cope with the harsh living conditions brought compensated for this period. We agree with the Labor Arbiter
about by inflation; and to protect employees and their wages that the new work schedule fully complies with the daily work
against the ravages brought by these conditions. period of eight hours without violating the Labor Code.
RULING:
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the
National Labor Relations Commission dated 29 November 1994
WHEREFORE the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED. is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 26
The private respondent is ordered to pay its regular fulltime November 1993 dismissing the complaint against petitioner for
teachers/employees emergency cost of living allowances for unfair labor practice is AFFIRMED.
the semestral break from November 7 to December 5, 1981
and the undistributed balance of the sixty (60%) percent
incremental proceeds from tuition increases for the same
schoolyear as outlined above. The respondent Commission is
sustained insofar as it DENIED the payment of salaries for the
suspended extra loads on September 21, 1981.
67
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
Whether the one-hour meal period should be considered While it may be correct to say that it is well-high impossible for
overtime work is not supported by substantial evidence. an employee to work while he is eating, yet under Section 1 of
Com. Act No. 444 such a time for eating can be segregated or
RATIO DECIDENDI: deducted from his work, if the same is continuous and the
employee can leave his working place rest completely. The
Far from being unsupported by substantial evidence, the time cards show that the work was continuous and without
record clearly confirms the above factual findings of the interruption. There is also the evidence adduced by the
Industrial Court. petitioner that the pertinent employees can neither freely leave
their working place nor rest completely.
RULING:
MERCURY DRUG CO., INC., petitioner, vs. NARDO
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs against DAYAO, ET AL., respondent.
appellant. G.R. No. L-30452. September 30, 1982.
ISSUE: ISSUE:
Whether on the basis of the evidence, the mealtime breaks Whether respondent CIR erred in sustaining respondent‘s claim
should be considered working time under the following on nighttime work premiums.
provision of the law.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
68
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
presented by the petitioner miserably failed to show the exact NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION,
and correct annual salary as stated in the respective contracts petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
of employment of the respondent employees. The figures COMMISSION and NBSR SUPERVISORY UNION,
arrived at in each case did not tally with the annual salaries on (PACIWU) TUCP, respondents.
to the employees' contracts of employment, the difference G.R. No. 101761. March 24, 1993.
varying from P1.20 to as much as P14.40 always against the
interest of the employees. The respondent court sustained the REGALADO, J.
private respondents' evidence to the effect that their 25%
additional compensation for work done on Sundays and Legal FACTS:
Holidays were not included in their respective monthly salaries.
The private respondents presented evidence through the Private respondent union represents the former supervisors of
testimonies of Nardo Dayao, Ernesto Talampas, and Josias the NASUREFCO Batangas Sugar Refinery. The petitioner
Federico who are themselves among the employees who filed implemented a Job Evaluation (JE) Program affecting all
the case for unfair labor practice in the respondent court and employees, from rank-and-file to department heads. As a
are private respondents herein. result, all positions were re-evaluated, and all employees
including the members of respondent union were granted
RULING: salary adjustments and increases in benefits commensurate to
their actual duties and functions. About ten years prior to the
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed. The decision JE Program, the members of respondent union used to be paid
and resolution appealed from are affirmed with costs against overtime, rest day and holiday pay. Two years after the
the petitioner. implementation of the JE Program, the members of herein
respondent union filed a complainant with the executive labor
EMIRATE SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, arbiter for non-payment of overtime, rest day and holiday pay
INC., petitioners, vs. GLENDA MENESE, respondent. allegedly in violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code.
G.R. No. 182848. October 5, 2011.
ISSUE:
BRION, J.
Whether supervisory employees, as defined in Article 212(m),
FACTS: Book V of the Labor Code, should be considered as officers or
members of the managerial staff under Article 82, Book III of
Menese was required to work 7 days a week, from 8:00 a.m. the same Code, and hence are not entitled to overtime rest
to 5:00 p.m. She was also required to report for work on day and holiday pay.
holidays, except on New Year‘s Day and Christmas. She
claimed that she was never given overtime, holiday, rest day RATIO DECIDENDI:
and premium pay. Menese further alleged that on May 4,
2001, she started getting pressures from the agency for her to Article 82, Book III of the Labor Code states that ―The
resign from her position because it had been committed to a provisions of this title shall apply to employees in all
certain Amy Claro. She claimed that the petitioners dismissed establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not, but
her from the service without just cause and due process. The not to xxx xxx xxx managerial employees xxx xxx xxx
petitioners denied liability. They alleged that they had been 'managerial employees' refer to those whose primary duty
receiving numerous complaints from security guards and other consists of the management of the establishment in which they
agency employees about Menese‘s unprofessional conduct. are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and to
The petitioners posit that Menese is not entitled to overtime other officers or members of the managerial staff.‖ Section 2,
pay because she did not work beyond the eight 8 hour working Rule I, Book III of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code
period; her 1 hour time off from twelve noon to 1:00 p.m. is states
not compensable. However, Menese contended that she ―(b) Managerial employees, if they meet all of the following
continued working even during the 1 hour break meal. conditions, namely:
(1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the
ISSUE: establishment in which they are employed or of a
department or subdivision thereof:
Whether Menese is entitled to overtime pay. (2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of two
or more employees therein:
RATIO DECIDENDI: (3) They have the authority to hire or fire other
employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and
In Global Incorporated v. Commissioner Atienza, a claim for recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to
overtime pay will not be granted for want of factual and legal the promotion or any other change of status of other
basis. There is no such proof in support of Menese‘s claim for employees are given particular weight.
overtime pay other than her contention that she worked from (c) Officers or members of a managerial staff if they perform
8:00 a.m. up to 5:00 p.m. She presented no evidence to show the following duties and responsibilities:
that she was working during the entire one hour meal break. (1) The primary duty consists of the performance of work
Thus, she is not entitled to overtime pay. directly related to management policies of their
employer;
RULING: (2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and
independent judgment;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, except for the overtime (3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a
pay award and the refund of deposit for the cash bond, the managerial employee whose primary duty consists of
petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed decision and the management of the establishment in which he is
resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED, with the employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute under
following modifications: general supervision work along specialized or
1) The deletion of the overtime pay award; and technical lines requiring special training, experience,
2) Adjustment of the refund of the cash or surety bond deposit or knowledge; or (iii) execute under general
award from P2, 500.00 to P600.00. supervision special assignments and tasks; and
Costs against the petitioners.
69
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
70
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
71
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
FACTS: FACTS:
Petitioner and PEMA disputed the revision in the computation Petitioner Pampanga Sugar Development Company Inc. seeks
of overtime pay in the CBA. PEMA wanted the cost of living the reversal of the decision of the respondent CIR awarding
allowance which was granted in 1958, and longevity pay which respondent Sugar Workers Association's counsel attorney's
was granted in 1961 to be included in the computation. PNB fees equivalent to 20% in the judgment and ordering the lower
refused and the 2 parties later went before the CIR to resolve court's Examining Division to compute the wage and fringe
the dispute. benefits differentials due the 28 individual workers who did not
execute quitclaims as well as attorney's fees corresponding to
CIR favors PEMA and ordered the inclusion of COLA and 20% of the benefits due to 53 workers who entered into
Longevity pay in the computation of Overtime pay. CIR relied agreements waiving their rights and benefits under the
in the ruling of NAWASA v. NAWASA Consolidated Unions decision.
which held that ―for purposes of computing overtime
compensation, regular wage includes all payments which the Sometime in February, 1956, the workers' affiliates of
parties have agreed shall be received during the work week, respondent Union staged a strike against petitioner company.
including differentiated payments for working at undesirable This labor dispute was certified by the President to the Court
times, such as at night and the board and lodging customarily of Industrial Relations. After six years, the said Court issued an
furnished the employee.‖ This prompted PNB to appeal, hence order directing petitioner company to reinstate the members of
this case. respondent union. On March 12, 1963 some 88 union
members were thus reinstated by petitioner. However,
ISSUE: petitioner discriminated against the reemployed workers with
respect to wage rates, off-season pay, cost of living allowance,
Whether the cost of living allowance and longevity pay should milling bonus and Christmas bonus by depriving them of
be included in the computation of overtime pay aforesaid benefits or by granting to some members benefits
lesser than those given to members of the Pasudeco Workers
RATIO: Union, another labor group in the service of petitioner. On
December 4, 1972, the CIR handed down a decision adjudging
NO. In any event, as stressed by Us in the Shell cases, the herein petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice acts and
basis of computation of overtime pay beyond that required by directing petitioner to pay wage differentials to certain workers
CA 444 must be the collective bargaining agreement; it is not and fringe benefits as would be found due and payable to
for the court to impose upon the parties anything beyond what them and to readmitted seasonal and casual members of
they have agreed upon which is not tainted with illegality. On respondent union totalling 88 with the exception of 7 workers.
the other hand, where the parties fail to come to an
agreement, on a matter not legally required, the court abuses ISSUE:
its discretion when it obliges any of them to do more than
what is legally obliged. Whether quitclaims (waiver) are valid
72
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS, Petitioner, Furthermore, Art. 286 of the Labor Code allows the bona fide
vs. suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a
COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS period not exceeding six (6) months, wherein some
COMMISSION, NOEL GONZALES, RAMON ABESA III and employee/employees are placed on the so-called "floating
FAUSTINO ANINIPOT, Respondents. status." When that "floating status" of an employee lasts for
G.R. No. 151966 July 8, 2005 more than six months, he may be considered to have been
illegally dismissed from the service. Thus, he is entitled to the
TINGA, J.: corresponding benefits for his separation, and this would apply
to suspension either of the entire business or of a specific
FACTS: component thereof.
JPL Marketing and Promotions is a domestic corporation As clearly borne out by the records of this case, private
engaged in the business of recruitment and placement of respondents sought employment from other establishments
workers. On the other hand, private respondents were even before the expiration of the six (6)-month period
employed by JPL as merchandisers on separate dates and provided by law. JPL did not terminate their employment; they
assigned at different establishments in Naga City and Daet, themselves severed their relations with JPL. Thus, they are not
Camarines Norte as attendants to the display of California entitled to separation pay.
Marketing Corporation (CMC), one of petitioner‘s clients.
Nonetheless, JPL cannot escape the payment of 13th month
On 13 August 1996, JPL notified private respondents that CMC pay and service incentive leave pay to private respondents.
would stop its direct merchandising activity in the Bicol Region, Said benefits are mandated by law and should be given to
Isabela, and Cagayan Valley effective 15 August 1996. They employees as a matter of right.
were advised to wait for further notice as they would be
transferred to other clients. However, on 17 October RULING:
1996, private respondents filed before the NLRC complaints for
illegal dismissal, praying for separation pay, 13th month pay, WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED IN PART.
service incentive leave pay and payment for moral The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
damages. While the case is pending and before the expiration SP No. 62631 are hereby MODIFIED. The award of separation
of 6 months having a floating status, some of the respondents pay is deleted. Petitioner is ordered to pay private respondents
applied and was employed to the store where they were their 13th month pay commencing from the date of
originally assigned by JPL. employment up to 15 August 1996, as well as service incentive
leave pay from the second year of employment up to 15
ISSUE: August 1996. No pronouncement as to costs.
Whether respondents are entitled to separation pay, 13th INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES'
month pay, and service incentive leave pay. UNION (IBAAEU), petitioner,
vs.
RATIO: HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, Deputy Minister, Ministry of
Labor and INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND
Under Arts. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, separation pay is AMERICA, respondents.
authorized only in cases of dismissals due to any of these G.R. No. L-52415 October 23, 1984
reasons:
MAKASIAR, J.:
(a) installation of labor saving devices;
(b) redundancy; FACTS:
(c) retrenchment;
(d) cessation of the employer's business; and On June 20, 1975, the petitioner who are monthly paid
(e) when the employee is suffering from a disease and his employees filed a complaint against the respondent bank for
continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to the payment of holiday pay before the then Department of
his health and to the health of his co-employees. Labor, NLRC in Manila. The Labor Arbiter granted petitioner‘s
complaint. Respondent bank complied by paying the holiday
However, separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of pay to and including January 1976. On December 1975, PD
social justice in those cases where the employee is validly 850 was promulgated amending the provisions of the Labor
dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those Code with the controversial section stating that monthly paid
reflecting on his moral character, but only when he was employees receiving uniform monthly pay is presumed to be
illegally dismissed. already paid the ―10 paid legal holidays‖. Policy instruction 9
was issued thereafter interpreting the said rule. Respondents
The common denominator of the instances where payment of bank stopped the payment by reason of the promulgated PD
separation pay is warranted is that the employee was 850 and Policy Instruction 9.
dismissed by the employer. In the instant case, there was no
dismissal to speak of. What they received from JPL was not a
73
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
74
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
The questioned Section 2, Rule IV, Book III of the Integrated ISSUE:
Rules and the Secretary's Policy Instruction No. 9 add another
excluded group, namely, "employees who are uniformly paid 1) Whether Nestle's sales personnel are entitled to holiday
by the month." pay;
When the law provides benefits for "employees in all 2) Whether concomitant with the award of holiday pay, the
establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or not" divisor should be changed from 251 to 261 days
and lists specifically the employees not entitled to those
benefits, the administrative agency implementing that law RATIO DECIDENDI:
cannot exclude certain employees from its coverage simply
because they are paid by the month or because they are 1) Sales personnel in this case are not entitled to holiday
already highly paid. pay. The law requires that the actual hours of work in
the field be reasonably ascertained. The company has
RULING: no way of determining whether or not these sales
personnel, even if they report to the office before
WHEREFORE, order of the public respondent is hereby 8:00 a.m. prior to field work and come back at 4:30
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the National Labor
p.m, really spend the hours in between in actual field
Relations Commission which affirmed the resolution of the
work. The Court ruled that the requirement for the
Labor Arbiter but deleted interest payments is REINSTATED.
salesmen and other similarly situated employees to
report for work at the office at 8:00 a.m. and return
UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES (UFE) vs. BENIGNO
VIVAR, JR., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS at 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. is not within the realm of work in
COMMISSION and NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INC. the field as defined in the Code but an exercise of
(formerly FILIPRO, INC.) purely management prerogative of providing
G.R. No. 79255, January 20, 1992 administrative control over such personnel. The
theoretical analysis that salesmen and other similarly-
GUTIERREZ, JR., J. situated workers on the given time creating the
assumption that their field work is supervised, is
FACTS: surface projection. Actual field work begins after 8:00
a.m., when the sales personnel follow their field
This labor dispute stems from the exclusion of sales personnel itinerary, and ends immediately before 4:00 or 4:30
from the holiday pay award and the change of the divisor in p.m. when they report back to their office. The period
the computation of benefits from 251 to 261 days. between the given time comprises their hours of work
Filipro, Inc. (now Nestle Philippines, Inc.) filed with the
in the field, the extent or scope and result of which
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a petition for
are subject to their individual capacity and industry
declaratory relief seeking a ruling on its rights and obligations
and which "cannot be determined with reasonable
respecting claims of its monthly paid employees for holiday pay
in the light of the Court's decision in Chartered Bank certainty." This is the reason why effective
Employees Association v. Ople. Both Filipro and the Union of supervision over field work of salesmen and medical
Filipino Employees (UFE) agreed to submit the case for representatives, truck drivers and merchandisers is
voluntary arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar, practically a physical impossibility. Consequently, they
Jr. as voluntary arbitrator. On January 2, 1980, Arbitrator Vivar are excluded from the ten holidays with pay award.
rendered a decision directing Filipro to: pay its monthly paid Moreover, the requirement that "actual hours of work
employees holiday pay pursuant to Article 94 of the Code, in the field cannot be determined with reasonable
subject only to the exclusions and limitations specified in certainty" must be read in conjunction with Rule IV,
Article 82 and such other legal restrictions as are provided for Book III of the Implementing Rules which provides:
in the Code. Filipro filed a motion for clarification seeking (1) This rule shall apply to all employees except: xxx xxx
the limitation of the award to three years, (2) the exclusion of xxx (e) Field personnel and other employees whose
salesmen, sales representatives, truck drivers, merchandisers time and performance is unsupervised by the
and medical representatives (hereinafter referred to as sales employer xxx xxx
personnel) from the award of the holiday pay, and (3) Hence, in deciding whether or not an employee's
deduction from the holiday pay award of overpayment for actual working hours in the field can be determined
overtime, night differential, vacation and sick leave benefits with reasonable certainty, query must be made as to
due to the use of 251 divisor. UFE answered that the award whether or not such employee's time and
should be made effective from the date of effectivity of the performance is constantly supervised by the
Labor Code, that their sales personnel are not field personnel employer.
and are therefore entitled to holiday pay, and that the use of As enunciated in the case of San Miguel Brewery, Inc.
251 as divisor is an established employee benefit which cannot v. Democratic Labor Organization, the Court had
be diminished. On 1986, Vivar issued an order declaring that occasion to discuss the nature of the job of a
the effectivity of the holiday pay award shall retroact to salesman. Citing the case of Jewel Tea Co. v.
November 1, 1974, the date of effectivity of the Labor Code. Williams, C.C.A. Okla., 118 F. 2d 202, the Court
He adjudged, however, that the company's sales personnel are stated: The reasons for excluding an outside
field personnel and, as such, are not entitled to holiday pay. salesman are fairly apparent. Such a salesman, to a
He likewise ruled that with the grant of 10 days' holiday pay, greater extent, works individually. There are no
the divisor should be changed from 251 to 261 and ordered restrictions respecting the time he shall work and he
the reimbursement of overpayment for overtime, night can earn as much or as little, within the range of his
differential, vacation and sick leave pay due to the use of 251 ability, as his ambition dictates. In lieu of overtime he
days as divisor. ordinarily receives commissions as extra
75
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
compensation. He works away from his employer's its complaint. In a complete reversal, however, the NLRC
place of business, is not subject to the personal granted all of private respondents claims, except for damages:
supervision of his employer, and his employer has no 1. The unpaid bonus (mid-year and Christmas bonus) and
way of knowing the number of hours he works per 13th month pay; 2) xxx 3) xxx
day. While in that case the issue was whether or not
salesmen were entitled to overtime pay, the same ISSUE:
rationale for their exclusion as field personnel from
holiday pay benefits also applies. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in granting the
payment of bonuses and 13th month pay?
2) The divisor should be 251 days. The reimbursement
of such overpayment with the use of 251 as divisor RATIO DECIDENDI:
arises concomitant with the award of ten holidays
with pay. The divisor assumes an important role in a) As to Bonuses
determining whether or not holiday pay is already As to the bonuses, private respondent declared in its position
included in the monthly paid employee's salary and in paper filed with the NLRC that:
the computation of his daily rate. As held in the case 1. Producers Bank of the Philippines, a banking institution, has
of, Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople been providing several benefits to its employees since 1971
(supra) that even without the presumption found in when it started its operation. Among the benefits it had been
regularly giving is a mid-year bonus equivalent to an
the rules and in the policy instruction, the company
employees one-month basic pay and a Christmas bonus
practice indicates that the monthly salaries of the
equivalent to an employees one whole month salary (basic pay
employees are so computed as to include the holiday
plus allowance);
pay provided by law.
2. When P.D. 851, the law granting a 13th month pay, took
In the case of Chartered Bank, in computing overtime effect, the basic pay previously being given as part of the
compensation for its employees, employs a "divisor" Christmas bonus was applied as compliance to it (P.D. 851),
of 251 days. The 251 working days divisor is the the allowances remained as Christmas bonus;
result of subtracting all Saturdays, Sundays and the 3. From 1981 up to 1983, the bank continued giving one
ten (10) legal holidays from the total number of month basic pay as mid-year bonus, one month basic pay as
calendar days in a year. In the petitioner's case, its 13th month pay but the Christmas bonus was no longer based
computation of daily ratio since September 1, 1980, is on the allowance but on the basic pay of the employees which
as follows: monthly rate x 12 months (251 days). is higher;
Following the criterion laid down in the Chartered 4. In the early part of 1984, the bank was placed under
Bank case, the use of 251 days' divisor by respondent conservatorship but it still provided the traditional mid-year
Filipro indicates that holiday pay is not yet included in bonus;
the employee's salary, otherwise the divisor should 5. By virtue of an alleged Monetary Board Resolution No. 1566,
have been 261. It must be stressed that the daily the bank only gave a one-half (1/2) month basic pay as
rate, assuming there are no intervening salary compliance of the 13th month pay and none for the Christmas
increases, is a constant figure for the purpose of bonus
computing overtime and night differential pay and Private respondent argues that the mid-year and Christmas
commutation of sick and vacation leave credits. bonuses, by reason of their having been given for thirteen
Necessarily, the daily rate should also be the same consecutive years, have ripened into a vested right and, as
basis for computing the 10 unpaid holidays. To such, can no longer be unilaterally withdrawn by petitioner
change the divisor from 251 to 261 days would result without violating Article 100 prohibits the diminution or
in a lower daily rate which is violative of the elimination of benefits already being enjoyed by the
prohibition on non-diminution of benefits found in employees. Although private respondent concedes that the
Article 100 of the Labor Code. grant of a bonus is discretionary on the part of the employer, it
argues that, by reason of its long and regular concession, it
RULING: may become part of the employees regular compensation.
On the other hand, petitioner asserts that it cannot be
WHEREFORE, the order of the voluntary arbitrator in hereby compelled to pay the alleged bonus differentials due to its
MODIFIED. The divisor to be used in computing holiday pay depressed financial condition, as evidenced by the fact that in
shall be 251 days. The holiday pay as above directed shall be 1984 it was placed under conservatorship by the Monetary
computed from October 23, 1984. In all other respects, the Board. According to petitioner, it sustained losses in the
order of the respondent arbitrator is hereby AFFIRMED. SO millions of pesos from 1984 to 1988, an assertion which was
ORDERED. affirmed by the labor arbiter. Moreover, petitioner points out
that the collective bargaining agreement of the parties does
PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. not provide for the payment of any mid-year or Christmas
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and bonus.
PRODUCERS BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION A bonus is an amount granted and paid to an employee for his
G.R. No. 100701, March 28, 2001
industry and loyalty which contributed to the success of the
employers business and made possible the realization of
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
profits. It is an act of generosity granted by an enlightened
employer to spur the employee to greater efforts for the
FACTS:
success of the business and realization of bigger profits. The
Present petition originated from a complaint filed by private granting of a bonus is a management prerogative, something
respondent on 11 February 1988. The Labor Arbiter found given in addition to what is ordinarily received by or strictly
private respondents claims to be unmeritorious and dismissed due the recipient. Thus, a bonus is not a demandable and
76
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
enforceable obligation, except when it is made part of the April 9, 1993, whether unworked, which, apart from being
wage, salary or compensation of the employee. Good Friday [and, therefore, a legal holiday], is also Araw ng
However, an employer cannot be forced to distribute bonuses Kagitingan [which is also a legal holiday]. The bulletin reads:
which it can no longer afford to pay. To hold otherwise would "On the correct payment of holiday compensation on April 9,
be to penalize the employer for his past generosity. 1993 which apart from being Good Friday is also Araw ng
It was established by the labor arbiter and the NLRC and Kagitingan, i.e., two regular holidays falling on the same day,
this Department is of the view that the covered employees are
admitted by both parties that petitioner was placed under
entitled to at least two hundred percent (200%) of their basic
conservatorship by the Monetary Board.
wage even if said holiday is unworked. The first 100%
Under Section 28-A, the Monetary Board may place a bank
represents the payment of holiday pay on April 9, 1993 as
under the control of a conservator when it finds that the bank
Good Friday and the second 100% is the payment of holiday
is continuously unable or unwilling to maintain a condition of pay for the same date as Araw ng Kagitingan. Said bulletin was
solvency or liquidity. reproduced on January 23, 1998, when April 9, 1998 was both
Petitioner was not only experiencing a decline in its profits, but Maundy Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan x x x x Despite the
was reeling from tremendous losses triggered by a bank-run explanatory bulletin, petitioner opted to pay its daily paid
which began in 1983. In such a depressed financial condition, employees only 100% of their basic pay on April 9, 1998.
petitioner cannot be legally compelled to continue paying the Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU)
same amount of bonuses to its employees. Thus, the protested.
conservator was justified in reducing the mid-year and Subject of interpretation in the case at bar is Article 94 of the
Christmas bonuses of petitioner's employees. To hold Labor Code which reads: ART. 94. Xxx xxx (c) As used in this
otherwise would be to defeat the reason for the Article, "holiday" includes by virtue of Executive Order No. 203
conservatorship which is to preserve the assets and restore the issued on June 30, 1987, regular holidays are now: 1. New
viability of the financially precarious bank. Ultimately, it is to Year‘s Day January 1 2. Maundy Thursday Movable Date 3.
Good Friday Movable Date 4. Araw ng Kagitingan April 9
the employees' advantage that the conservatorship achieves its
(Bataan and Corregidor Day) 5. Labor Day May 1 6.
purposes for the alternative would be petitioner's closure
Independence Day June 12 7. National Heroes Day Last
whereby employees would lose not only their benefits, but
Sunday of August 8. Bonifacio Day November 30 9. Christmas
their jobs as well. Day December 25 10. Rizal Day December 30
b) As to 13th Month Pay The voluntary arbitrator ruled in favor of the Bisig ng Asian
With regard to the 13th month pay, the NLRC adopted the Transmission Labor Union (BATLU), it was held that Article 94
position taken by private respondent and held that the of the Labor Code provides for holiday pay for every regular
conservator was not justified in diminishing or not paying the holiday, the computation of which is determined by a legal
13th month pay and that petitioner should have instead applied formula which is not changed by the fact that there are two
for an exemption, in accordance with section 7 of Presidential holidays falling on one day, like on April 9, 1998 when it was
Decree No. 851 (PD 851), as amended by Presidential Decree Araw ng Kagitingan and at the same time was Maundy
No. 1364, but that it did not do so. In the case at bar, even Thursday; and that the law, as amended, enumerates ten
assuming the truth of private respondent's claims as contained regular holidays for every year should not be interpreted as
in its position paper or Memorandum regarding the payments authorizing a reduction to nine the number of paid regular
received by its members in the form of 13th month pay, mid- holidays "just because April 9 (Araw ng Kagitingan) in certain
year bonus and Christmas bonus, it is noted that, for each and years, like 1993 and 1998, is also Holy Friday or Maundy
every year involved, the total amount given by petitioner Thursday." In the assailed decision, the Court of Appeals
would still exceed, or at least be equal to, one month basic upheld the findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator, holding that
salary and thus, may be considered as an "equivalent" of the the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner
13thmonth pay mandated by PD 851. and BATLU, the law governing the relations between them,
Thus, petitioner is justified in crediting the mid-year bonus and clearly recognizes their intent to consider Araw ng Kagitingan
Christmas bonus as part of the 13th month pay. and Maundy Thursday, on whatever date they may fall in any
calendar year, as paid legal holidays during the effectivity of
RULING: the CBA and that "[t]here is no condition, qualification or
WHEREFORE, for the reasons above stated, the 30 April 1991 exception for any variance from the clear intent that all
Decision of public respondent in NLRC-NCR Case No. 02- holidays shall be compensated." The Court of Appeals further
00753-88, entitled Producers Bank Employees Association v. held that "in the absence of an explicit provision in law which
Producers Bank of the Philippines, and its 18 June 1991 provides for [a] reduction of holiday pay if two holidays
Resolution issued in the same case are hereby SET ASIDE, happen to fall on the same day, any doubt in the interpretation
with the exception of public respondents ruling on damages. and implementation of the Labor Code provisions on holiday
SO ORDERED. pay must be resolved in favor of labor."
77
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State Elena dela Puerta. SMC contested the findings and DOLE
shall afford protection to labor.7 Its purpose is not merely "to conducted summary hearings. Still, SMC failed to submit proof
prevent diminution of the monthly income of the workers on that it was paying regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees.
account of work interruptions. In other words, although the Hence, Alan M. Macaraya, Director IV of DOLE Iligan District
worker is forced to take a rest, he earns what he should earn, Office issued a compliance order, dated 17 December 1993,
that is, his holiday pay." It is also intended to enable the directing SMC to consider Muslim holidays as regular holidays
worker to participate in the national celebrations held during and to pay both its Muslim and non-Muslim employees holiday
the days identified as with great historical and cultural pay within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the order. SMC
significance. Independence Day (June 12), Araw ng Kagitingan appealed to the DOLE main office in Manila but its appeal was
(April 9), National Heroes Day (last Sunday of August), dismissed for having been filed late. The dismissal of the
Bonifacio Day (November 30) and Rizal Day (December 30) appeal for late filing was later on reconsidered in the order of
were declared national holidays to afford Filipinos with a 17 July 1998 after it was found that the appeal was filed within
recurring opportunity to commemorate the heroism of the the reglementary period. However, the appeal was still
Filipino people, promote national identity, and deepen the dismissed for lack of merit and the order of Director Macaraya
spirit of patriotism. Labor Day (May 1) is a day traditionally was affirmed. SMC went to this Court for relief via a petition
reserved to celebrate the contributions of the working class to for certiorari, which this Court referred to the Court of Appeals.
the development of the nation, while the religious holidays The appellate court, in the now questioned decision,
designated in Executive Order No. 203 allow the worker to promulgated on 08 May 2000, ruled, as follows: WHEREFORE,
celebrate his faith with his family. the Order dated December 17, 1993 of Director Macaraya and
As reflected above, Art. 94 of the Labor Code, as amended, Order dated July 17, 1998 of Undersecretary Espaol, Jr. is
affords a worker the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays. hereby MODIFIED with regards the payment of Muslim holiday
The provision is mandatory,10 regardless of whether an pay from 200% to 150% of the employee's basic salary. Let
employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. Unlike a bonus, this case be remanded to the Regional Director for the proper
which is a management prerogative, holiday pay is a statutory computation of the said holiday pay. SO ORDERED. Its motion
benefit demandable under the law. Since a worker is entitled for reconsideration having been denied for lack of merit, SMC
to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays, the fact that two filed a petition for certiorari before this Court, alleging that:
holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to
nine the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to ISSUE:
receive. It is elementary, under the rules of statutory
construction, that when the language of the law is clear and Whether public respondents seriously erred and committed
unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly what it grave abuse of discretion when they granted muslim holiday
says. In the case at bar, there is nothing in the law which pay to non-muslim employees of SMC-ilicoco and ordering SMC
provides or indicates that the entitlement to ten days of to pay the same retroactive for one (1) year from the date of
holiday pay shall be reduced to nine when two holidays fall on the promulgation of the compliance order issued on December
the same day. 17, 199
Only an employee who works on the day immediately
preceding or after a regular holiday shall be entitled to the RATIO DECIDENDI:
holiday pay. A paid legal holiday occurring during the
scheduled vacation leave will result in holiday payment in Muslim holidays are provided under Articles 169 and 170, Title
addition to normal vacation pay but will not entitle the I, Book V, of Presidential Decree No. 1083,[8] otherwise
employee to another vacation leave. Under similar known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, which states: Art.
circumstances, the COMPANY will give a day‘s wage for 169. Official Muslim holidays. - The following are hereby
November 1st and December 31st whenever declared a recognized as legal Muslim holidays: (a) Amun Jadīd (New
holiday. When required to work on said days, the employee Year), which falls on the first day of the first lunar month of
will be paid according to Art. VI, Sec. 3B hereof. Muharram; (b) Maulid-un-Nabī (Birthday of the Prophet
Muhammad), which falls on the twelfth day of the third lunar
RULING: month of Rabi-ul-Awwal; (c) Lailatul Isrā Wal Mirāj (Nocturnal
Journey and Ascension of the Prophet Muhammad), which falls
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED on the twenty-seventh day of the seventh lunar month of
Rajab; (d) Īd-ul-Fitr (Hari Raya Puasa), which falls on the first
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE day of the tenth lunar month of Shawwal, commemorating the
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS-FORMER end of the fasting season; and (e) Īd-ūl-Adhā (Hari Raya
THIRTEENTH DIVISION, HON. UNDERSECRETARY JOSE Haji),which falls on the tenth day of the twelfth lunar month of
M. ESPAOL, JR., Hon. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, and Dhūl-Hijja. Art. 170. Provinces and cities where officially
HON. REGIONAL DIRECTOR ALLAN M. MACARAYA observed. - (1) Muslim holidays shall be officially observed in
G.R. No. 146775, January 30, 2002 the Provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur,
Maguindanao, North Cotabato, Iligan, Marawi, Pagadian, and
KAPUNAN, J. Zamboanga and in such other Muslim provinces and cities as
may hereafter be created; (2) Upon proclamation by the
FACTS: President of the Philippines, Muslim holidays may also be
officially observed in other provinces and cities. The foregoing
The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Iligan provisions should be read in conjunction with Article 94 of the
District Office, conducted a routine inspection in the premises Labor Code, which provides: Art. 94. Right to holiday pay. (a)
of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) in Sta. Filomena, Iligan City. Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during
In the course of the inspection, it was discovered that there regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments
was underpayment by SMC of regular Muslim holiday pay to its regularly employing less than ten (10) workers; (b) The
employees. DOLE sent a copy of the inspection result to SMC employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but
and it was received by and explained to its personnel officer such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to
78
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
twice his regular rate; x x x. Petitioner asserts that Article 3(3) VIVIAN Y. IMBUIDO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
of Presidential Decree No. 1083 provides that (t)he provisions COMMISSION, INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION
of this Code shall be applicable only to Muslims x x x. SERVICES, INC. and GABRIEL LIBRANDO
However, there should be no distinction between Muslims and G.R. No. 114734, March 31, 2000
non-Muslims as regards payment of benefits for Muslim
holidays. The Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining BUENA, J.
Undersecretary Espaol who stated: Assuming arguendo that
the respondents position is correct, then by the same token, FACTS:
Muslims throughout the Philippines are also not entitled to
holiday pays on Christian holidays declared by law as regular Imbuido was employed as a data encoder by International
holidays. We must remind the respondent-appellant that Information Services, Inc., (ISSI) a domestic corporation
wages and other emoluments granted by law to the working engaged in the business of data encoding and keypunching,
man are determined on the basis of the criteria laid down by she entered into thirteen (13) separate employment contracts
laws and certainly not on the basis of the workers faith or with ISSI, each contract lasting only for a period of three (3)
religion. At any rate, Article 3(3) of Presidential Decree No. months. Aside from the basic hourly rate, specific job contract
1083 also declares that x x x nothing herein shall be construed number and period of employment, each contract contains the
to operate to the prejudice of a non-Muslim. In addition, the following terms and conditions:
1999 Handbook on Workers Statutory Benefits, approved by a. This Contract is for a specific project/job contract only and
then DOLE Secretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma on 14 December shall be effective for the period covered as above-mentioned
1999 categorically stated: Considering that all private unless sooner terminated when the job contract is completed
corporations, offices, agencies, and entities or establishments earlier or withdrawn by client, or when employee is dismissed
operating within the designated Muslim provinces and cities for just and lawful causes provided by law. The happening of
are required to observe Muslim holidays, both Muslim and any of these events will automatically terminate this contract
Christians working within the Muslim areas may not report for of employment.
work on the days designated by law as Muslim holidays. b. Subject shall abide with the Companys rules and regulations
On the question regarding the jurisdiction of the Regional for its employees attached herein to form an integral part
Director Allan M. Macaraya, Article 128, Section B of the Labor hereof
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7730, provides: Article c. The nature of your job may require you to render overtime
128. Visitorial and enforcement power. x x x (b) work with pay so as not to disrupt the Companys commitment
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 129 and 217 of this of scheduled delivery dates made on said job contract.
Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of Imbuido and twelve (12) other employees of ISSI allegedly
employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and agreed to the filing of a petition for certification election
Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have involving the rank-and-file employees of ISSI. Thus, on
the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the October 8, 1991, Lakas Manggagawa sa Pilipinas (LAKAS) filed
labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor a petition for certification election with the Bureau of Labor
legislation based on the findings of labor employment and Relations (BLR), docketed as NCR-OD-M-9110-128.
enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the Subsequently, Imbuido received a termination letter from ISSI
course of the inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized allegedly "due to low volume of work."
representative shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate Thus, Imbuido filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer
authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases for service incentive leave pay and 13th month differential pay,
where the employer contests the findings of the labor with the NLRC, National Capital Region, Arbitration Branch,
employment and enforcement officer and raises issues docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 05-02912-92.
supported by documentary proofs which were not considered Imbuido alleged that her employment was terminated not due
in the course of inspection. x x x In the case before us, to the alleged low volume of work but because she "signed a
Regional Director Macaraya acted as the duly authorized petition for certification election among the rank and file
representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment and employees of respondents," thus charging private respondent
it was within his power to issue the compliance order to SMC. with committing unfair labor practices.
In addition, the Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the She further complained of non-payment of service incentive
petitioner did not deny that it was not paying Muslim holiday leave benefits and underpayment of 13th month pay. On the
pay to its non-Muslim employees. Indeed, petitioner merely other hand, ISSI maintained that it had valid reasons to
contends that its non-Muslim employees are not entitled to terminate Imbuido they stressed that its business "relies
Muslim holiday pay. heavily on companies availing of its services. And the
employment of Imbuido was for a "specific project with a
RULING: specified period of engagement."
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Imbuido, and accordingly
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is ordered her reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. privileges, and the payment of backwages and service
incentive leave pay. Citing that Imbuido is a regular employee,
after finding that it is crystal clear that herein complainant
performed a job which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business of ISSI. Furthermore, the LA concluded that
petitioner was illegally dismissed because the alleged reason
for her termination, that is, low volume of work, is "not among
the just causes for termination recognized by law," hence, he
ordered her immediate reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and with full backwages.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the labor arbiter
in a decision. The NLRC held that the complainant while hired
79
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
as a regular worker, is statutorily guaranteed, in her tenurial Case No. 05-02912-92 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION as
security, only up to the time the specific project for which she above-stated, with regard to the computation of back wages
was hired is completed." Hence, the NLRC concluded that and service incentive leave pay. Sc SO ORDERED.
"[w]ith the specific project "at RCBC 014" admittedly
completed, Imbuido has therefore no valid basis in charging NICANOR M. BALTAZAR vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY,
illegal dismissal for her concomittant (sic) dislocation. INC.
G.R. No. L-23076, February 27, 1969
ISSUE:
DIZON, J.
Whether Imbuido was a regular employee, not a project
employee FACTS:
80
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
period, as if he were entitled to greater protection than AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., PETITIONER
employees engaged for a fixed duration. VS ANTONIO BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT
GR No. 156367
RULING: May 16, 2005
81
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
the attendance of respondent. They noted his habitual Alamares were entitled to their retirement pay. The Labor
tardiness and absenteeism. Arbiter also held that based on the evidence presented, Josefa
Petitioners issued a Memorandum requiring respondent to Po Lam is the owner/proprietor of Mayon Hotel & Restaurant
submit a written explanation why no administrative sanction and the proper respondent in these cases.
should be imposed on him for his habitual tardiness. However, On appeal to the NLRC, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was
despite respondents undertaking to report on time, he reversed, and all the complaints were dismissed.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC
continued to disregard attendance policies, and was eventually
and when this was denied, they filed a petition for certiorari
dismissed. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
with the CA. CA reversed the NLRC decision and the employers
filed MR which was denied, hence the case before the SC.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bitara is illegally dismissed.
Whether or not tin the absence of illegal dismissal case, where
RATIO DECIDENDI: an employee may not be entitled to a separation pay, may still
be entitled to the Labor Standards benefits.
No. there is no illegal dismissal. Article 282 of the Labor Code
provides that an employer may terminate an employment for RATIO DECIDENDI:
any of the following reasons:
Illegal Dismissal: claim for separation pay
b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties…
Clearly, even in the absence of a written company rule defining
First, petitioners admit that since April 1997, when hotel
gross and habitual neglect of duties, respondent‘s omission
operations were suspended due to the termination of the lease
qualify as such warranting his dismissal from the service. The of the old premises, respondents Loveres, Macandog, Llarena,
court cannot simply tolerate injustice to employees if only to Nicerio and Guades have not been permitted to work. Second,
protect the welfare of undeserving employees. It is within the even after six months of what should have been just a
management prerogative to terminate his employment. Even temporary lay-off, the same respondents were still not recalled
as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it must to work. As a matter of fact, the Labor Arbiter even found that
also protect the rights of an employer to exercise what are as of the time when he rendered his Joint Decision on July
clearly management prerogatives. 2000 — or more than three (3) years after the supposed
Accordingly the court affirmed the ruling of the National Labor ―temporary lay-off,‖ the employment of all of the respondents
Relations Commission that the dismissal is valid however the with petitioners had ceased, notwithstanding that the new
respondent shall be entitled to the money equivalent of five premises had been completed and the same operated as a
hotel with bar and restaurant. This is clearly dismissal — or the
day service incentive leave.
permanent severance or complete separation of the worker
from the service on the initiative of the employer regardless of
RULING: the reasons therefor. But they made no mention of any intent
to recall these respondents to work upon completion of the
Wherefore the resolution dated June 29, 2001 and the order new premises. And even assuming that the closure was due to
dated February 21, 2002 of the National Labor Relations a reason beyond the control of the employer, it still has to
Commission are hereby reinstated with modification that accord its employees some relief in the form of severance pay.
petitioners are ordered to pay respondent the money While we recognize the right of the employer to terminate the
equivalent of the five day service incentive leave. services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, the
dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of
MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT, et. al., petitioners, vs. law and pursuant to the tenets of fair play.66 And in
ROLANDO ADANA, et. al., respondents termination disputes, the burden of proof is always on the
GR No. 157634 May 16, 2005 employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just or
authorized cause.67 Where there is no showing of a clear,
valid and legal cause for termination of employment, the law
PUNO, J.:
considers the case a matter of illegal dismissal.
FACTS: RULING:
Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant is a single proprietor IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is hereby DENIED. The
business registered in the name of petitioner Pacita O. Po,
Decision of January 17, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
whose mother, petitioner Josefa Po Lam, manages the
G.R. SP No. 68642 upholding the Joint Decision of July 14,
establishment. The hotel and restaurant employed about
sixteen (16) employees. 2000 of the Labor Arbiter in RAB V Case Nos. 04-00079-97 and
Due to the expiration and non-renewal of the lease contract for 04-00080-97 is AFFIRMED, with the following
the rented space occupied by the said hotel and restaurant at MODIFICATIONS:
Rizal Street, the hotel operations of the business were (1) Granting separation pay of one-half (1/2) month
suspended on March 31, 1997. The operation of the restaurant for every year of service to respondents Loveres,
was continued in its new location at Elizondo Street, Legazpi Macandog and Llarena;
City, while waiting for the construction of a new Mayon Hotel & (2) Granting retirement pay for respondents Guades,
Restaurant at Peñaranda Street, Legazpi City. Only nine (9) of Nicerio, and Alamares;
the sixteen (16) employees continued working in the Mayon (3) Removing the deductions for food facility from the
Restaurant at its new site. The 16 employees filed complaints amounts due to all respondents;
for underpayment of wages and other money claims against (4) Awarding moral damages of P20,000.00 each for
petitioners. respondents Loveres, Macandog, Llarena, Guades,
Executive Labor Arbiter Gelacio L. Rivera, Jr. rendered a Joint Nicerio, Atractivo, and Broola;
Decision in favor of the employees. The Labor Arbiter awarded (5) Deleting the award of exemplary damages
substantially all of respondents‘ money claims, and held that of P10,000.00 from all respondents except
respondents Loveres, Macandog and Llarena were entitled to Loveres, Macandog, Llarena, Guades, Nicerio,
separation pay, while respondents Guades, Nicerio and Atractivo, and Broola; and
82
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
(6) Granting attorney‘s fees of P10,000.00 each to all to perform ordinary manual labor, and not one engaged
respondents. in services consisting mainly of work requiring mental skill or
The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the business capacity, and involving the exercise of intellectual
RECOMPUTATION of the total monetary benefits awarded and faculties. Article 1708 used the word "wages" and not "salary"
due to the employees concerned in accordance with the in relation to "laborer" when it declared what are to be
decision. The Labor Arbiter is ORDERED to submit his exempted from attachment and execution. The term "wages"
compliance thereon within thirty (30) days from notice of this
as distinguished from "salary", applies to the compensation for
decision, with copies furnished to the parties.
manual labor, skilled or unskilled, paid at stated times,
SO ORDERED.
and measured by the day, week, month, or season, while
ROSARIO A. GAA, petitioner, "salary" denotes a higher degree of employment, or a superior
vs. grade of services, and implies a position of office: by contrast,
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, EUROPHIL the term wages " indicates considerable pay for a lower and
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, and CESAR R. ROXAS, less responsible character of employment, while "salary" is
Deputy Sheriff of Manila, respondents. suggestive of a larger and more important service. Bell vs.
G.R. No. L-44169 December 3, 1985 Indian Livestock Co it was held that salary is understood to
relate to position of office, to be the compensation given
Patajo, J.: for official or other service, as distinguished from 'wages', the
compensation for labor." Persons belonging to this class
FACTS: usually look to the reward of a day's labor for immediate or
present support, and such persons are more in need of the
Europhil Industries Corporation was formerly one of the exemption than any others.
tenants in Trinity Building while Gaa was then the building
administrator. December 12, 1973 - Europhil Industries RULING:
commenced an action in the CFI of Manila for damages against
Gaa for trespassing upon its rights, namely, cutting of IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, We find the present petition to
its electricity, and removing its name from the building be without merit and hereby AFFIRM the decision of the Court
directory and gate passes of its officials and employees. June of Appeals, with costs against petitioner.
28, 1974 – CFI ruled in favor of Europhil ordering Gaa to pay SO ORDERED.
the former actual damages, moral damages, exemplary
damages and to pay the costs. August 1, 1975 - A writ of SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST and SONNY
garnishment was issued pursuant to which Deputy Sheriff L. LAGON, Petitioners,
Roxas served a Notice of Garnishment upon El Grande Hotel, vs.
where Gaa was then employed, garnishing her "salary, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4th
commission and/or remuneration." Gaa then filed with the CFI DIVISION, ROLDAN LOPEZ, EDGARDO ZUÑIGA and
of Manila a motion to lift said garnishment on the ground that DANILO CAÑETE, Respondents.
her salaries, commission and, or remuneration are G.R. No. 172161 March 2, 2011
exempted from execution under Article 1708 of the New Civil
Code. CFI: denied Gaa‘s motion and her subsequent MR. CA: Mendoza, J.:
dismissed Gaa‘s petition on the ground that Gaa is not a mere
laborer as contemplated under Article 1708 as the term laborer FACTS:
does not apply to one who holds a managerial or supervisory
position like that of petitioner, but only to those "laborers Respondents were supposedly employed by petitioner as
occupying the lower strata." It also held that the term "wages" project employees in 11996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. They were
means the pay given" as hire or reward to artisans, mechanics, paid less than the minimum wage for the four periods of their
domestics or menial servants, and laborers employed employment. During their 4th employment, Lagon, the
in manufactories, agriculture, mines, and other manual employer, due to economic constraints, had to cut down on
occupation and usually employed to distinguish the sums paid the overtime work of the employees. Thus, when respondent-
to persons hired to perform manual labor, skilled or unskilled, employees asked for overtime work, Lagon had to refuse
paid at stated times, and measured by the day, week, month, them, and told them that if they insist, they would have to go
or season. home at their own expense and that they would not be given
any more time nor be allowed to stay in their quarters. The
ISSUE: case was brought before the Labor Arbiter, on a complaint for
illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, non-payment of 13th
Whether or not Gaa may be considered a laborer as contemplated under month pay, among other things, against the employer. The
Article 1708 of the Civil Code. employer reasoned that the employees were project
employees, since they were employed for a specific
RATION DECIDENDI: undertaking, and thus were not regular employees entitled to
minimum wage. Further, the employer reasoned that the
NO. Gaa is not an ordinary or rank and file laborer but a employees were actually paid above the minimum wage, since
responsibly placed employee of El Grande Hotel. Considering the allowances for snacks, lodging house, electricity, water,
the importance of Gaa's function in El Grande Hotel, it is and transportation should be included in the wages.
undeniable that Gaa is occupying a position equivalent to that
of a managerial or supervisory position. The word "laborer" The LA opined that private respondents were regular
includes everyone who performs any kind of mental or physical employees because they were repeatedly hired by petitioners
labor, but as commonly and customarily used and understood, and they performed activities which were usual, necessary and
it only applies to one engaged in some form of manual or desirable in the business or trade of the employer. With regard
physical labor. In Kline vs. Russell it was held that a laborer, to the underpayment of wages, the LA found that private
within the statute exempting from garnishment the wages of a respondents were underpaid. It ruled that the free board and
"laborer," is one whose work depends on mere physical power lodging, electricity, water, and food enjoyed by them could not
83
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
be included in the computation of their wages because these affidavit. She thereafter reluctantly filed a leave of absence
were given without their written consent. The LA, however, from her job which was denied by management. When she
found that petitioners were not liable for illegal dismissal.The attempted to return to work, she was informed not report to
LA viewed private respondent's act of going home as an act of work and, instead, continue with her unofficial leave of
indifference when petitioners decided to prohibit overtime absence. Consequently, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
work. The NLRC and CA affirmed and ruled against the In his defense, respondent Peter Ng alleged that petitioner
surreptitiously left (her job) without notice to the
employer.
management" and that she actually abandoned her work.
Eleven (11) months after the original complaint for illegal
ISSUE: dismissal was filed, private respondent raised a new ground,
loss of confidence, which was supported by a criminal
Whether or not the employees entitled to minimum wage? complaint for Qualified Theft.
Whether or not the free board and lodging, electricity, water, Issue:
and food enjoyed by the employees be included in the
computation of the wages Whether or not the dismissal by the private respondent of
petitioner constitutes an unfair labor practice.
RATION DECIDENDI:
Ratio Decidendi:
Preliminarily, the Court noted that the case involves factual
disputes decided by the trial courts, whose decisions the Court
It is settled that in termination cases the employer bears the
cannot disturb. Settled is the fact that decisions by labor
burden of proof to show that the dismissal is for just cause,
arbiters, due to their expertise, cannot be disturbed and are the failure of which would mean that the dismissal is not
accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial justified and the employee is entitled to reinstatement. It is
evidence. Thus it cannot decide on the issue of whether the crystal clear that the circumstances upon which private
employees are project or regular employees, and must affirm respondent anchored his claim that petitioner "abandoned" her
the ruling that they are regular employees. In any case, job were not enough to constitute just cause to sanction the
project employees are entitled to the minimum wage, since termination of her services under Article 283 of the Labor
they are not among the exclusions enumerated in the Labor Code. For abandonment to arise, there must be concurrence of
Code Implementing Rules. two things: 1) lack of intention to work; and 2) the presence of
overt acts signifying the employee's intention not to work.
On the issue of whether the facilities should be included as Loss of confidence as a just cause for dismissal was never
intended to provide employers with a blank check for
wages, a four-pronged test must be completed: proof must be
terminating their employees. Such a vague, all-encompassing
shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the
pretext as loss of confidence, if unqualifiedly given the seal of
trade; second, the provision of deductible facilities must be approval by this Court, could readily reduce to barren form the
voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and finally, words of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
facilities must be charged at reasonable value. Mere availment Having this in mind, loss of confidence should ideally apply
is not sufficient to allow deductions from employees‘ wages. only to cases involving employees occupying positions of trust
and confidence or to those situations where the employee is
These requirements, however, have not been met in this case. routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's
SLL failed to present any company policy or guideline showing money or property.
that provisions for meals and lodging were part of the Without doubt, the act of compelling employees to sign an
employees‘ salaries. It also failed to provide proof of the instrument indicating that the employer observed labor
employees written authorization, much less show how they standards provisions of law when he might have not, together
arrived at their valuations. At any rate, it is not even clear with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to
cooperate with the employer's scheme constitutes unfair labor
whether private respondents actually enjoyed said facilities.
practice.
RULING: Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The temporary WHEREFORE, premises considered, the RESOLUTION of the
restraining order issued by the Court on November 29, 2006 is National Labor Relations Commission dated April 24, 1994 is
deemed, as it is hereby ordered, DISSOLVED. REVERSED and SET ASIDE, with costs.
SO ORDERED.
ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION,
NORMA MABEZA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR petitioner, vs. A TOK-BIG WEDGE MINING COMPANY,
RELATIONS COMMISSION, PETER NG/HOTEL INCORPORATED, respondents. Pablo C. Sanidad for
SUPREME, respondents. petitioner. Roxas and Sarmiento for respondents.
G.R. No. 118506 April 18, 1997 G.R. No. L-7349 July 19, 1955
Facts: Facts:
Petitioner Mabeza contends that she and her co-employees at The petitioner labor union submitted to the respondents
the Hotel Supreme were asked by the hotel's management to several demands, among which was an increase in daily wage.
sign an instrument attesting to the latter's compliance with The matter was referred to the CIR for arbitration and
minimum wage and other labor standard provisions of law. settlement. In 1951, the Court rendered a decision fixing the
Petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go to the City minimum wage which the mining company appealed from
Prosecutor's Office to swear to the veracity and contents of the (G.R. No. L-5276). Subsequently, the respondent filed an
affidavit as instructed by management. According to her, urgent petition for authority to stop operations and lay off
respondent strongly chided her for refusing to attest to the employees and laborers as the continued operation of the
84
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
company would lead to its immediate bankruptcy and collapse. STATES MARINE CORPORATION and ROYAL LINE, INC.,
To avert the closure, the parties were convened for voluntary petitioners, vs. CEBU SEAMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.,
conciliation which, after lengthy discussion, arrived at an respondent. Pedro B. Uy Calderon for petitioners.
agreement (October 1952) fixing minimum wage and provision Gaudioso C. Villagonzalo for
of facilities to be charged in full or partially by the respondent, respondent.
against laborer or employee, as it may see fit pursuant to the G.R. No. L-12444 February 28, 1963
exigencies of its operation.
Later, Case No. G.R. No. L-5276 was decided by this Court PAREDES, J.:
affirming the decision of the CIR fixing the minimum cash
wage of the laborers and employees at P3.20 cash, without Facts:
rice ration, or P2.65, with rice ration. In June 1953, the labor
union filed a petition for the enforcement of the terms of the In a complaint filed by the herein respondent, the Union
agreement of October 29, 1952, as allegedly modified by the alleged that the officers and men working on board the
decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-5276 and the provisions of petitioners' vessels have not been paid their sick leave,
the Minimum Wage Law, which has since taken effect, praying vacation leave and overtime pay and that after the Minimum
for the payment of the minimum cash wage of P3.45 a day Wage Law had taken effect, the petitioners required their
with rice ration, or P4.00 without rice ration, and the payment employees on board their vessels, to pay the sum of P.40 for
of differential pay from August 4, 1952, when the award every meal, while the masters and officers were not required
became effective. Petitioner argues that to allow the to pay their meals.
deductions stipulated in the Agreement of October 1952 from In their defense, that petitioners argued that the company
the minimum daily wage would be a waiver of the minimum have suffered financial losses in the operation of their vessels
wage fixed by the law and hence null and void, since RA 602, and that there is no law which provides for the payment of sick
section 20, provides that "no agreement or contract, oral or leave or vacation leave to employees or workers of private
written, to accept a lower wage or less than any other under firms and that in enacting Rep. Act No. 602 (Minimum Wage
this Act, shall be valid". Petitioner also argues that to allow the Law), the Congress had in mind that the amount of P.40 per
deductions of the facilities would be contrary to the mandate meal, furnished the employees should be deducted from the
of RA 602 prohibiting reduction in supplements furnished on daily wages. The CIR rendered a decision in favor of the
the date of enactment. respondent union. Hence, the instant petition.
Issue: Issue:
Whether or not deductions stipulated in agreement from the Whether or not the ―meals‖ are deductible from the salaries in
minimum wage is void. view of the passage of the Minimum Wage Law.
An agreement to deduct certain facilities received by the We hold that such deductions are not authorized. Section 3,
laborers from their employer is not a waiver of the minimum par. f, of the Minimum Wage Law, (R.A. No. 602), provides as
wage fixed by the law. Wage, as defined by Sec. 2 of RA 602, follows — (f) Until and unless investigations by the Secretary
"includes the fair and reasonable value as determined by the of Labor on his initiative or on petition of any interested party
Secretary of Labor, of board, lodging, or other facilities result in a different determination of the fair and reasonable
customarily furnished by the employer to the employee." value, the furnishing of meals shall be valued at not more than
The meaning of the term "supplements" has been fixed by the thirty centavos per meal for agricultural employees and not
Code of Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Wage more than forty centavos for any other employees covered by
Administration Office to implement the Minimum Wage Law as: this Act…‖
extra renumeration or benefits received by wage earners from It would appear that there exists a contradiction between the
their employees and include but are not restricted to pay for provisions of section 3(f) and section 19 of Rep. Act No. 602;
vacation and holidays not worked; paid sick leave or maternity but from a careful examination of the same, it is evident that
leave; overtime rate in excess of what is required by law; sick, Section 3(f) constitutes the general rule, while section 19 is the
pension, retirement, and death benefits; profit-sharing; family exception. It is argued that the food or meals given to the
allowances; Christmas, war risk and cost-of-living bonuses; or deck officers, marine engineers and unlicensed crew members
other bonuses other than those paid as a reward for extra in question, were mere "facilities" which should be deducted
output or time spent on the job. "Supplements", therefore, from wages, and not "supplements" which, according to said
constitute extra renumeration or special privileges or benefits section 19, should not be deducted from such wages, because
given to or received by the laborers over and above their it is provided therein: "Nothing in this Act shall deprive an
ordinary earnings or wages. Facilities, on the other hand, are employee of the right to such fair wage..or in reducing
items of expense necessary for the laborer's and his family's supplements furnished on the date of enactment."
existence and subsistence, so that by express provision of the The benefit or privilege given to the employee which
law (sec. 2 [g]) they form part of the wage and when constitutes an extra remuneration above and over his basic or
furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom since if ordinary earning or wage, is supplement; and when said
they are not so furnished, the laborer would spend and pay for benefit or privilege is part of the laborers' basic wages, it is a
them just the same. It is thus clear that the facilities facility. The criterion is not so much with the kind of the
mentioned in the agreement of October 29, 1952 do not come benefit or item (food, lodging, bonus or sick leave) given, but
within the term "supplements" as used in Art. 19 of the its purpose. Considering, therefore, as definitely found by the
Minimum Wage Law. respondent court that the meals were freely given to crew
members prior to August 4, 1951, while they were on the high
Ruling: seas "not as part of their wages but as a necessary matter in
the maintenance of the health and efficiency of the crew
Finding no reason to sustain the present petition for review, personnel during the voyage", the deductions therein made for
the same is, therefore, dismissed, with costs against the the meals given after, should be returned to them, and the
petitioner Atok-Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Association operator of the coastwise vessels affected should continue
giving the same benefit.
85
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
RULING: RULING:
In view hereof, the petition is dismissed, with costs against the WHEREFORE, the Court rules: In G.R. No. 58870, the Order of
petitioners. respondent Minister of Labor and Employment is SUSTAINED
insofar as it ordered petitioner Cebu Institute of Technology to
CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CIT), petitioner, vs. pay its teaching staff. (1) Cost of living allowance under Pres.
HON. BLAS OPLE, in his capacity as Minister, Ministry of Dec.Nos.525 and 1123; (2) Cost of living allowance under
Labor and Employment, et.al Pres. Dec. Nos. 1614, 1634, 1678 and 1713; and (3) Service
G.R. No. L-58870 December 18, 1987 incentive leave due them.
86
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
modified by deleting the award of bonus differentials to the June 25, 1986 ordering the payment of 14th month pay to
employees for 1986. In other respects, the decision is private respondents is set aside.
affirmed. Costs against the respondent union
EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION OF THE PHILIPPINES,
KAMAYA POINT HOTEL, petitioner, vs.NATIONAL petitioner, vs. NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY
LABOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION, FEDERA TION OF COMMISSION AND REGIONAL TRIPARTITE WAGES
FREE WORKERS and MEMIA QUIAMBAO, respondent. AND PRODUCTIVITY BOARD-NCR, TRADE UNION
G.R. No. 75289 August 31, 1989 CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 96169 September 24, 1991
FERNAN, C.J.:
SARMIENTO, J.:
Facts:
Facts:
Respondent Memia Quiambao with thirty others who are
members of private respondent Federation of Free On October 15, 1990, the Regional Board of the National
Workers (FFW) were employed by petitioner as hotel Capital Region issued Wage Order No. NCR-01, increasing the
crew . On the basis of the profitability of the company's minimum wage by P17.00 daily in the National Capital Region.
business operations, management granted a 14th month The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) moved for
pay to its employees starting in 1979. In January 1982, reconsideration; so did the Personnel Management Association
operations ceased to give way to the hotel's conversion of the Philippines (PMAP). ECOP opposed.
into a training center for Libyan scholars. However, due On October 23, 1990, the Board issued Wage Order No.
totechnical and financing problems, the Libyans pre-terminated NCR01-A, amending Wage Order No. NCR-01. It provides that
the program which the company suffered losses. In a couple of all workers and employees in the private sector in the National
months it effected a retrenchment program until finally on Capital Region already receiving wages above the statutory
January 7, 1984, it totally closed its business. minimum wage rates up to one hundred and twenty-five pesos
In 1983, private respondent filed withthe Ministry of (P125.00) per day shall also receive an increase of seventeen
Labor and Employmenta complaint against petitioner for pesos (P17.00) per day.
illegal suspension, violation of the CBA and non-payment ECOP appealed to the National Wages and Productivity
of the 14thmonth pay for the year 1982 . After the hearing, Commission contending that the board's grant of an "across-
Labor Arbiter ordered the payment of 14th month and other the-board" wage increase to workers already being paid more
monetary equivalent of benefits mentioned in the CBA. On than existing minimum wage rates (up to P125.00 a day) as an
appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) alleged excess of authority. ECOP further alleges that under
set aside the award of monetary benefits under the CBA but the Republic Act No. 6727, the boards may only prescribe
affirmed the grant of the 14th month. This 14th month payis "minimum wages," not determine "salary ceilings." ECOP
now an existing benefit which cannot be withdrawn without likewise claims that Republic Act No. 6727 is meant to promote
violating article 100 of the Labor Code. To allow its withdrawal collective bargaining as the primary mode of settling wages,
now would certainly amount to a diminution of existing and in its opinion, the boards cannot preempt collective
benefits which complainants are presently enjoying. Hence, bargaining agreements by establishing ceilings.
this instant petition. On November 6, 1990, the Commission promulgated an Order,
dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. On November 14,
Issue: 1990, the Commission denied reconsideration. ECOP then,
elevated the case via petition for review on certiorari to the
Whether or not the private respondents are entitled to a 14th Supreme Court.
month pay?
Issue:
Ratio Decidendi:
Whether Wage Order No. NCR-01-A providing for new wage
We find it difficult to comprehend why the NLRC and the rates, as well as authorizing various Regional Tripartite Wages
Labor Arbiter, despite their admission that the 14th and Productivity Boards to prescribe minimum wage rates for
month pay has no contractual or legal basis, still chose all workers in the various regions, and for a National Wages
to rule in favor of private respondents. It is patently and Productivity Commission to review, among other functions,
obvious thatArticle 100 is clearly without applicability. The date wage levels determined by the boards is valid.
of effectivity of the Labor Code is May 1, 1974. In the case at
bar, petitioner extended its 14th month pay beginning 1979 Ratio Decidendi:
until 1981. What is demanded is payment of the 14th month
pay for 1982. Indubitably from these facts alone, Article 100 of The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Wages and
the Labor Code cannot apply.Also contractually, as gleaned Productivity Commission and Regional Tripartite Wages and
from the collective bargaining agreement between Productivity Board-NCR, Trade Union Congress of the
management and the union, there is no stipulation as to Philippines and denied the petition of ECOP.
such extra remuneration. Evidently, this omission is an The Supreme Court held that Republic Act No. 6727 was
acknowledgment that such benefit is entirely contilagent or intended to rationalize wages, first, by providing for full-time
dependent on the profitability of the company's operations boards to police wages round-the-clock, and second, by giving
Verily , a 14th month pay is a misnomer because it is the boards enough powers to achieve this objective. The Court
basically a bonus and, therefore, gratuitous in nature. is of the opinion that Congress meant the boards to be creative
The granting of the 14th month pay is a management in resolving the annual question of wages without labor and
prerogative which cannot be forced upon the employer. management knocking on the legislature's door at every turn.
It is something given in addition to what is ordinarily The Court's opinion is that if Republic No. 6727 intended the
received by or strictly due the recipient. It is a gratuity to boards alone to set floor wages, the Act would have no need
which the recipient has no right to make a demand. for a board but an accountant to keep track of the latest
consumer price index, or better, would have Congress done it
Ruling: as the need arises, as the legislature, prior to the Act, has
done so for years. The fact of the matter is that the Act sought
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The portion of a "thinking" group of men and women bound by statutory
the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated standards. The Court is not convinced that the Regional Board
87
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
of the National Capital Region, in decreeing an across-the- agree with the observation of the Labor Arbiter that in 1993
board hike, performed an unlawful act of legislation. It is true there was no labor dispute since the labor unrest took place
that wage-firing, like rate-fixing, constitutes an act Congress; it only in the later part of 1997. Hence, there was no reason for
is also true, however, that Congress may delegate the power management to harass its employees. Regarding the 1993
to fix rates provided that, as in all delegations cases, Congress COLA, the respondents filed the complaint for underpayment
leaves sufficient standards. As this Court has indicated, it is of wage on September 24, 1997. Thus, the action for the
impressed that the above-quoted standards are sufficient, and payment of the December 1993 COLA has already prescribed.
in the light of the floor-wage method's failure, the Court On the other hand, the 1994 COLA contains a computation of
believes that the Commission correctly upheld the Regional the amounts payable to the employees for the given period,
Board of the National Capital Region. including a breakdown of the allowances and deductions on
the amount due, but the signatures of the respondents are
Ruling: conspicuously missing. Ideally, the signatures of the
respondents should appear in the payroll as evidence of actual
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. No payment. However, the absence of such signatures does not
pronouncement as to costs. necessarily lead to the conclusion that the December 1994
COLA was not received. It appears that the payslips for the
KAR ASIA, INC. and/or CELESTINO S. BARETTO, same period bear the signatures of the respondents plus a
petitioners, vs. MARIO CORONA, RICKY HEPGANO, certification that they received the full compensation for the
JOHNNY COLLADOS, CONSTANTINO LAGARAS, RANEL services rendered.
BALANSAG, ARNOLD AVILA, PETER ARCENAL, ARNOLD
CABAHUG, BERNARD BETE, RUPERTO RESTAURO, Ruling:
WILLY CRUZ, RANDY BASNILLO, ARMAN BASTE,
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the petition is
ERNESTO ESPINA, PATRICIO AGUDELA, IRENEO
GRANTED. The February 28, 2002 decision of the Court of
BANGOY, PALERMO AUTENTICO, GEORGE TAGAYTAY,
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57972 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
BENITO MATUGAS, and WILFREDO ESPINA, The Decision of the NLRC dated August 23, 1999 dismissing
respondents. respondent‘s claims of unpaid COLA for December 1993 and
G.R. No. 154985. August 24, 2004 December 1994, and deleting the awards for moral damages,
attorney‘s fees and litigation expenses for lack of sufficient
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: basis, is AFFIRMED.
88
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
89
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
90
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
standards claims against HI-TECH, Herman T. Go, owner, and therefrom by private respondent. As a consequence,
Carmen Belano, general manager. they are entitled to reinstatement with full back
Petitioners claimed that they were summarily dismissed from wages, undiminished by earnings elsewhere, to be
employment by the management of HI-TECH in retaliation for computed from their illegal dismissal to their actual
organizing a labor union in the work premises as well as in reinstatement.
filing the petition for certification election before the 2. Yes, petitioners are entitled to back wages and other
Department of Labor. They further averred that they were paid monetary benefits. First, petitioners executed a JOINT
daily wages below the minimum fixed by law and that they AFFIDAVIT specifying their daily wages, positions and
were required to work six (6) days a week from 8 oclock in the periods of employment, which was made the basis of
morning to 7 oclock in the evening without being paid for the the Labor Arbiters computation of the monetary
overtime. Neither were they paid their service incentive leave awards. Second, all that the NLRC needed to do was
pay and 13th month pay.
to refer to the prevailing minimum wage to ascertain
On the other hand, HI-TECH denied having dismissed
the correctness of petitioners claims. Third, and most
petitioners. It contended that petitioners were probably stung
by their defeat in the certification election such that they importantly, the burden of proving payment of
refused to work thereafter. In support of these allegations, monetary claims rests on the employer.
private respondent presented in evidence the affidavits of
employees who initially joined petitioners in filing their As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the
complaints but later desisted from pursuing their claims. The burden of proving it. Even where the plaintiff must
pertinent portions of the affidavits uniformly read that they allege non-payment, the general rule is that the
were not dismissed by the company but they resigned burden rests on the defendant to prove payment,
voluntarily ad that they received salary in accordance with law. rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.
A consolidated decision was rendered by Labor Arbiter in favor The debtor has the burden of showing with legal
of petitioners ordering HI-TECH to reinstate petitioners to their certainty that the obligation has been discharged with
former positions without loss of seniority rights and with full
payment. The reason for the rule is that the pertinent
back wages, and to pay their mandated monetary benefits.
personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and
On appeal by HI-TECH, the NLRC in its decision vacated and
other similar documents which will show that
set aside the Labor Arbiters Decision and ordered petitioners to
report back to work, or if no longer feasible, directed HI-TECH overtime, differentials, service incentive leave and
to pay petitioners their separation benefits. other claims of workers have been paid are not in the
Hence, this petition. possession of the worker but in the custody and
absolute control of the employer. Thus, in choosing
Issue: not to present evidence to prove that it had paid all
the monetary claims of petitioners, HI-TECH failed
1. Whether or not the petitioners were illegally once again to discharge the onus probandi.
dismissed.
2. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to back wages Ruling:
and other monetary benefits
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision
Ratio Decidendi: dated 30 May 1997 and Resolution dated 31 July 1997 of the
National Labor Relations Commission are SET ASIDE, and the
1. Yes, the petitioners were illegally dismissed. It is
Labor Arbiters Decision of 15 August 1996 is REINSTATED.
well-settled that factual findings of quasi-judicial
Private respondent is directed to reinstate petitioners to their
agencies such as the NLRC are generally accorded not
only respect but, at times, even finality. However, the former positions without loss of seniority rights and with full
rule is not absolute and admits of certain well- back wages, as well as to pay their monetary benefits in
recognized exceptions. Thus, when the findings of accordance with the computation made by Labor Arbiter
fact of the NLRC are not supported by substantial Emerson C. Tumanon in his Decision of 15 August 1996.
evidence, capricious or arbitrary, and directly at However, insofar as Arturo Manimtim and Exequiel Manimtim
variance with those of the Labor Arbiter, this Court are concerned, this case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter for
may make an independent evaluation of the facts of purposes of determining the amounts they received as
the case. consideration for their quitclaims and thereafter deducting
It is clear from the records that sometime in August these amounts from their monetary awards.
1994, immediately after petitioners supposedly
"refused to work" having lost earlier in the TRADERS ROYAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION-
certification election, several complaints for illegal INDEPENDENT, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
dismissal against HI-TECH were filed by petitioners. RELATIONS COMMISSION and EMMANUEL NOEL A.
These are sufficient proofs that they were never guilty CRUZ, respondents.
of leaving their jobs. The concept of abandonment of G.R. No. 120592. March 14, 1997
work is inconsistent with the immediate filing of
complaints for illegal dismissal. An employee who REGALADO, J.:
took steps to protest his layoff could not by any logic
be said to have abandoned his work. Abandonment is Facts:
a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed
from certain equivocal acts. To constitute Petitioner Traders Royal Bank (TRB) Employees Union and
abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate private respondent Atty. Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz, head of the
and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee E.N.A. Cruz and Associates law firm, entered into a retainer
relationship. Mere absence of the employee is not agreement on February 26, 1987 in the amount of P3,000.00
sufficient. The burden of proof to show a deliberate as monthly retainer fee. Said retainer agreement was
and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his terminated by the union on April 4, 1990.
employment without any intention of returning rests During the existence of that agreement, petitioner union
on the employer. HI-TECH failed to discharge its referred to private respondent the claims of its members for
burden. Hence, it is concluded that petitioners did not holiday, mid-year and year-end bonuses against their
abandon their jobs but were illegally dismissed
91
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
employer, Traders Royal Bank (TRB). After the appropriate business of the client and referred to him for legal action. The
complaint was filed by private respondent, the case was future services of the lawyer are secured and committed to the
certified by the Secretary of Labor to the National Labor retaining client. For this, the client pays the lawyer a fixed
Relations Commission (NLRC) on March 24, 1987. retainer fee which could be monthly or otherwise, depending
The NLRC rendered a decision awarding the employees holiday upon their arrangement. The fees are paid whether or not
pay differential, mid-year bonus differential, and year-end there are cases referred to the lawyer. The reason for the
bonus differential. remuneration is that the lawyer is deprived of the opportunity
Petitioner TRB challenged the NLRC‘s decision before the of rendering services for a fee to the opposing party or other
Supreme Court. The Court modified the decision of the NLRC parties. In fine, it is a compensation for lost opportunities.
by deleting the award of mid-year and year-end bonus A special retainer is a fee for a specific case handled or special
differentials while affirming the award of holiday pay service rendered by the lawyer for a client.
differential. Evidently, the P3,000.00 monthly fee provided in the retainer
The bank voluntarily complied with such final judgment and agreement between the union and the law firm refers to a
paid its concerned employees their respective entitlement in general retainer, or a retaining fee, as said monthly fee covers
said sum through their payroll. only the law firms pledge, or its commitment to render certain
After private respondent received the above decision of the legal services. The fee is not payment for private respondent‘s
Supreme Court, he notified the petitioner union, the TRB execution or performance of the services listed in the contract,
management and the NLRC of his right to exercise and enforce subject to some particular qualifications or permutations stated
his attorney‘s lien over the award of holiday pay differential. there.
Thereafter, private respondent filed a motion before the Labor Petitioner and private respondent were not able to come into
Arbiter for the determination of his attorney‘s fees, praying agreement as to the law firm‘s actual performance of services
that 10% of the total award for holiday pay differential in favor of the union. Hence, the retainer agreement cannot
computed by TRB at P175,794.32, or the amount control the measure of remuneration for private respondent‘s
of P17,579.43, be declared as his attorneys fees, and that services.
petitioner union be ordered to pay said amount to him. Petitioner cannot deny that it did benefit from private
The labor arbiter granted the motion of private respondent, respondents efforts as the law firm was able to obtain an
ordering petitioner union to pay the attorney‘s fees due the award of holiday pay differential in favor of the union. It
private respondent the amount of P17,574.43 or 10% per cent cannot even hide behind the cloak of the monthly retainer
of the P175,794.32 awarded by the Supreme Court to its of P3,000.00 paid to private respondent because, as
members. demonstrated earlier, private respondents actual rendition of
Petitioner to file an appeal with the NLRC which affirmed the legal services is not compensable merely by said amount.
Labor Arbiter‘s decision. The motion for reconsideration filed Private respondent is entitled to an additional remuneration for
by petitioner was denied by the NLRC. Hence the petition. pursuing legal action in the interest of petitioner before the
Petitioner contends that the challenged resolution of the NLRC labor arbiter and the NLRC, on top of the P3,000.00 retainer
is null and void as it is in violation of the retainer agreement. fee he received monthly from petitioner. The law firm‘s
All attorney‘s fees due to private respondent were covered by services are decidedly worth more than such basic fee in the
the retainer fee of P3,000.00 which it has been regularly retainer agreement.
paying to private respondent under their retainer
agreement. To be entitled to the additional attorney‘s fees as Ruling:
provided in Part D (Special Billings) of the agreement, it avers
that there must be a separate mutual agreement between the WHEREFORE, the impugned resolution of respondent National
union and the law firm prior to the performance of the Labor Relations Commission affirming the order of the labor
additional services by the latter. Since there was no agreement arbiter is MODIFIED, and petitioner is hereby ORDERED to pay
as to the payment of the additional attorney‘s fees, then it is the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) as
considered waived. attorney‘s fees to private respondent for the latter‘s legal
Private respondent contends that a retainer fee is not the services rendered to the former.
attorney‘s fees contemplated for and commensurate to the
services he rendered to petitioner. He asserts that although LOURDES G. MARCOS, ALEJANDRO T. ANDRADA,
there was no express agreement as to the amount of his fees BALTAZARA J. LOPEZ AND VILMA L.
for services rendered in the case for recovery of differential CRUZ, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
pay, Article 111 of the Labor Code supplants this omission by COMMISSION and INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO.,
providing for an award of ten percent (10%) of a money LTD., respondents.
judgment in a labor case as attorney‘s fees. G.R. No. 111744 September 8, 1995
Issue:
REGALADO, J.:
Whether or not the attorney‘s fees of private respondent is
FACTS:
included in his monthly retainer fee of P3,000.00.
Petitioners were regular employees of private respondent
Ratio Decidendi:
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., but they were dismissed on
November 1, 1990 due to redundancy. A special redundancy
As provided in the retainer agreement, the P3,000.00 which
benefit was paid to them, which included payment of accrued
petitioner pays monthly to private respondent does not cover
vacation leave and 50% of unused current sick leave, special
the services the latter actually rendered before the labor
redundancy benefit, equivalent to 3 months salary for every
arbiter and the NLRC in behalf of the former. As stipulated in
year of service; and additional cash benefits, in lieu of other
Part C of the agreement, the monthly fee is intended merely as
benefits provided by the company or required by law.
a consideration for the law firms commitment to render the
Petitioner Marcos had been in the employ of private
services enumerated in Part A (General Services) and Part B
respondent for more than 20 years; petitioner Andrada, more
(Special Legal Services) of the retainer agreement.
than 25 years; petitioner Lopez, exactly 30 years; and
There are two kinds of retainer fees a client may pay his
petitioner Cruz, more than 20 years.
lawyer: general retainer, or a retaining fee, and a special
Petitioners, particularly Baltazara J. Lopez, sent a letter to
retainer. A general retainer, or retaining fee, is the fee paid to
respondent company claiming that they should receive their
a lawyer to secure his future services as general counsel for
any ordinary legal problem that may arise in the routinary
92
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
respective service awards and other prorated bonuses which deed of release or quitclaim cannot bar an employee
they had earned. from demanding benefits to which he is legally
Private respondent required petitioners to execute a "Release entitled.
and Quitclaim," and petitioners complied but with a written We have heretofore explained that the reason why quitclaims
protest reiterating their previous demand that they were commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy, and why
nonetheless entitled to receive their service awards. they are held to be ineffective to bar claims for the full
Petitioners inquired from the Legal Service of the measure of the workers' legal rights, is the fact that the
DOLE whether respondent corporation could legally refuse the employer and the employee obviously do not stand on the
payment of their service awards as mandated in their same footing. The employer drove the employee to the wall.
Employee's Manual. The latter must have harsh necessities of life. He thus found
The labor department issued its opinion holding that: First… a himself in no position to resist money proffered. His, then, is a
gratuity or bonus… may become regarded as part of regular case of adherence, not of choice. One thing sure, however, is
compensation and thus demandable; Second, the award is that petitioners did not relent on their claim. They pressed it.
earned at the pertinent anniversary date which becomes a They are deemed not have waived any of their
crucial determining factor. Since the award accrues on that rights. Renuntiatio non praesumitur.
date, it is of no moment that the entitled employee is Quitclaims and/or complete releases executed by the
separated from service (for whatever cause) before the awards employees do not estop them from pursuing their claims
are physically handed out; Third, even if the award has not arising from unfair labor practices of the employer. The basic
accrued — as when an employee is separated from service reason for this is that such quitclaims and/or complete releases
because of redundancy before the applicable 5th year are against public policy and, therefore, null and void. The
anniversary, the material benefits of the award must be given, acceptance of termination does not divest a laborer of the right
prorated, by Insular Life. This is especially true (in) to prosecute his employer for unfair labor practice acts. While
redundancy, wherein he/she had no control; and Fourth, the there maybe possible exceptions to this holding, we do not
fact that you were required to sign "Release and Quitclaim" perceive any in the case at bar.
does not affect petitioners‘ right to the material benefits of the In the instant case, when petitioners signed the instrument of
service award. . . . release and quitclaim, they made a written manifestation
Meanwhile, private respondent celebrated its 80th anniversary reserving their right to demand the payment of their service
wherein the management approved the grant of an awards. The element of total voluntariness in executing that
anniversary bonus equivalent to one month salary only to instrument is negated by the fact that they expressly stated
permanent and probationary employees. Respondent company therein their claim for the service awards, a manifestation
announced the grant of performance bonus to both rank and equivalent to a protest and a disavowal of any waiver thereof.
file employees and supervisory specialist grade and managerial 2. Equity demands that the performance and
staff equivalent to 2 months salary and 2.75 basic salary, anniversary bonuses should be prorated to the
respectively, as of December 30, 1990. The performance number of months that petitioners actually served
bonus, however, would be given only to permanent employees respondent company in the year 1990.
as of March 30, 1991. In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., et al. vs. NLRC, et al., this
Despite the opinion of the DOLE, private respondent refused to Court ruled that "as to the service award differentials claimed
pay petitioners‘ service awards. This prompted the latter to file by some respondent union members, the company policy shall
a consolidated complaint before the NLRC Labor Arbiter, for likewise prevail, the same being based on the employment
payment of their service awards, including performance and contracts or collective bargaining agreements between the
anniversary bonuses. parties. As the petitioners had explained, pursuant to their
In their complaint, petitioners contended that they are likewise policies on the matter, the service award differential is given at
entitled to the performance and anniversary bonuses because, the end of the year to an employee who has completed years
at the time the performance bonus was announced to be of service divisible by 5.
given, they were only short of 2 months service to be entitled A bonus is not a gift or gratuity, but is paid for some services
to the full amount thereof as they had already served the or consideration and is in addition to what would ordinarily be
company for 10 months prior to the declaration of the grant of given. The term "bonus" as used in employment contracts,
said benefit. Also, they lacked only 15 days to be entitled to also conveys an idea of something which is gratuitous, or
the full amount of the anniversary bonus when it was which may be claimed to be gratuitous, over and above the
announced to be given to employees as of November 15, prescribed wage which the employer agrees to pay.
1990. If one enters into a contract of employment under an
The labor arbiter ordered respondent company to pay agreement that he shall be paid a certain salary by the week
petitioners their service awards, anniversary bonuses and or some other stated period and, in addition, a bonus, in case
prorated performance bonuses, including 10% thereof as he serves for a specified length of time, there is no reason for
attorney's fees. refusing to enforce the promise to pay the bonus, if the
Respondent company appealed to the NLRC. employee has served during the stipulated time, on the ground
The NLRC upheld the validity of the quitclaim document that it was a promise of a mere gratuity.
executed by petitioners, holding that they were not placed In the case at bar, equity demands that the performance and
under duress or were compelled by means of force to sign the anniversary bonuses should be prorated to the number of
document and that they voluntarily accepted the redundancy months that petitioners actually served respondent company in
benefit package. the year 1990.
Hence, this petition.
Ruling:
Issues:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision and resolution of
1. Whether or not quitclaim document is valid. respondent National Labor Relations Commission are hereby
2. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the service SET ASIDE and the decision of Labor Arbiter Alex Arcadio
awards. Lopez is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi:
93
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS, Petitioner, versus and not up to the finality of the 27 July 2000 resolution of the
COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS NLRC.
COMMISSION, NOEL GONZALES, RAMON ABESA III and Private respondents claim that their dismissal, while not illegal,
FAUSTINO ANINIPOT, Respondents. was tainted with bad faith. They allege that they were
G.R. No. 151966 July 8, 2005 deprived of due process because the notice of termination was
sent to them only 2 days before the actual termination.
TINGA, J.:
JPL denied that the notice it sent to them was a notice of
Facts: actual termination. The said memo merely notified them of the
end of merchandising for CMC, and that they will be
JPL Marketing and Promotions (JPL) is a domestic corporation transferred to other clients. Moreover, JPL is not bound to
engaged in the business of recruitment and placement of observe the 30-day notice rule as there was no dismissal to
workers. On the other hand, private respondents Noel speak of.
Gonzales, Ramon Abesa III and Faustino Aninipot were
employed by JPL as merchandisers on separate dates and Issues:
assigned at different establishments in Naga City and Daet,
Camarines Norte as attendants to the display of California 1. Whether or not private respondents are entitled to
Marketing Corporation (CMC), one of petitioner‘s clients. separation pay, 13thmonth pay and service incentive
leave pay; and
On 13 August 1996, JPL notified private respondents that CMC 2. Granting that they are so entitled, what should be the
would stop its direct merchandising activity in the Bicol Region, reckoning point for computing said awards.
Isabela, and Cagayan Valley effective 15 August 1996. They
were advised to wait for further notice as they would be Ratio Decidendi:
transferred to other clients. However, on 17 October
1996, private respondents Abesa and Gonzales filed before the 1. Private respondents are not entitled to separation
NLRC Sub V complaints for illegal dismissal, praying for pay, but can claim 13th month pay and service
separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay incentive leave pay.
and payment for moral damages. Aninipot filed a similar case.
Under Arts. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, separation pay is
The Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints for lack authorized only in cases of dismissals due to any of these
of merit. The Labor Arbiter found that Gonzales and Abesa reasons: (a) installation of labor saving devices; (b)
applied with and were employed by the store where they were redundancy; (c) retrenchment; (d) cessation of the employer's
originally assigned by JPL even before the lapse of the 6- business; and (e) when the employee is suffering from a
month period given by law to JPL to provide private disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or
respondents a new assignment. Thus, they may be considered is prejudicial to his health and to the health of his co-
to have unilaterally severed their relation with JPL, and cannot employees. However, separation pay shall be allowed as a
charge JPL with illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter held that it measure of social justice in those cases where the employee is
was incumbent upon private respondents to wait until they validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or
were reassigned by JPL, and if after six months they were not those reflecting on his moral character, but only when he was
reassigned, they can file an action for separation pay but not illegally dismissed. In addition, Sec. 4(b), Rule I, Book VI of
for illegal dismissal. The claims for 13th month pay and service the Implementing Rules to Implement the Labor Code provides
incentive leave pay was also denied since private respondents for the payment of separation pay to an employee entitled to
were paid way above the applicable minimum wage during reinstatement but the establishment where he is to be
their employment. reinstated has closed or has ceased operations or his present
position no longer exists at the time of reinstatement for
Private respondents appealed to the NLRC. In reasons not attributable to the employer.
its Resolution, the NLRC agreed with the Labor Arbiter‘s finding
that when private respondents filed their complaints, the 6- The common denominator of the above instances is that the
month period had not yet expired, and that CMC‘s decision to employee was dismissed by the employer. In the instant case,
stop its operations in the areas was beyond the control of JPL, there was no dismissal to speak of. Private respondents were
thus, they were not illegally dismissed. However, it found that simply not dismissed at all, whether legally or illegally. What
despite JPL‘s effort to look for clients to which private they received from JPL was not a notice of termination of
respondents may be reassigned it was unable to do so, and employment, but a memo informing them of the termination of
hence they are entitled to separation pay. CMCs contract with JPL. More importantly, they were advised
that they were to be reassigned. At that time, there was no
The NLRC ordered the payment of separation pay, Service severance of employment to speak of.
Incentive Leave pay, and 13th month pay.
Furthermore, Art. 286 of the Labor Code allows the bona fide
JPL filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a
claiming that private respondents are not by law entitled to period not exceeding 6 months, wherein an
separation pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month employee/employees are placed on the so-called floating
pay. status. When that floating status of an employee lasts for more
than six months, he may be considered to have been illegally
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed dismissed from the service. Thus, he is entitled to the
in toto the NLRC resolution. corresponding benefits for his separation, and this would apply
to suspension either of the entire business or of a specific
In the instant petition for review, JPL claims that the case does component thereof.
not fall under any of the instances where separation pay is
due. As clearly borne out by the records of this case, private
respondents sought employment from other establishments
In addition, even assuming arguendo that private respondents even before the expiration of the 6-month period provided by
are entitled to the benefits awarded, the computation thereof law. As they admitted in their comment, all three of them
should only be from their first day of employment with JPL up applied for and were employed by another establishment after
to 15 August 1996, the date of termination of CMCs contract, they received the notice from JPL. JPL did not terminate their
94
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
employment; they themselves severed their relations with JPL. HONDA PHILS., INC., petitioner, vs. SAMAHAN NG
Thus, they are not entitled to separation pay. MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA HONDA, respondent.
G.R. No. 145561. June 15, 2005
Nonetheless, JPL cannot escape the payment of 13th month
pay and service incentive leave pay to private respondents. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Said benefits are mandated by law and should be given to
employees as a matter of right. Facts:
Presidential Decree No. 851, as amended, requires an The case stems from the Collective Bargaining Agreement
employer to pay its rank and file employees a 13th month pay (CBA) forged between petitioner Honda and respondent union
not later than 24 December of every year. However, employers Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda (respondent
not paying their employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent union) which binds the company to maintain the present
are not covered by said law. The term its equivalent was practice in the implementation of the 13th month pay; grant a
defined by the laws implementing guidelines as including 14th Month Pay, computed on the same basis as computation
Christmas bonus, mid-year bonus, cash bonuses and other of 13th Month Pay; and continue the practice of granting, in its
payment amounting to not less than 1/12 of the basic salary discretion, financial assistance to covered employees in
but shall not include cash and stock dividends, cost-of-living- December of each year, of not less than 100% of basic pay.
allowances and all other allowances regularly enjoyed by the
employee, as well as non-monetary benefits. This CBA is effective until year 2000. In the latter part of 1998,
the parties started re-negotiations for the fourth and fifth years
On the other hand, service incentive leave, as provided in Art. of their CBA. When the talks between the parties bogged
95 of the Labor Code, is a yearly leave benefit of five (5) days down, respondent union filed a Notice of Strike on the ground
with pay, enjoyed by an employee who has rendered at least of bargaining deadlock. Thereafter, Honda filed a Notice of
one year of service. The term at least one year of service shall Lockout.
mean service within 12 months, whether continuous or broken
reckoned from the date the employee started working. Respondent union filed a second Notice of Strike on the
ground of unfair labor practice alleging that Honda illegally
In this case, private respondents were not given their contracted out work to the detriment of the workers.
13th month pay and service incentive leave pay while they
were under the employ of JPL. Instead, JPL provided salaries Respondent union went on strike and picketed the premises of
which were over and above the minimum wage. The Court Honda. The striking employees were ordered to return to work
rules that the difference between the minimum wage and the and the management accepted them back under the same
actual salary received by private respondents cannot be terms prior to the strike staged.
deemed as their 13th month pay and service incentive leave
pay as such difference is not equivalent to or of the same The management of Honda issued a memorandum announcing
import as the said benefits contemplated by law. Thus, as its new computation of the 13th and 14th month pay to be
properly held by the Court of Appeals and by the NLRC, private granted to all its employees whereby the 31-day long strike
respondents are entitled to the 13th month pay and service shall be considered unworked days for purposes of computing
incentive leave pay. said benefits. As per the company‘s new formula, the amount
equivalent to 1/12 of the employees‘ basic salary shall be
2. While computation for the 13th month pay should deducted from these bonuses, with a commitment however
properly begin from the first day of employment, the that in the event that the strike is declared legal, Honda shall
service incentive leave pay should start a year after pay the amount deducted.
commencement of service, for it is only then that the
employee is entitled to said benefit. On the other Respondent union opposed the pro-rated computation of the
hand, the computation for both benefits should only bonuses. Honda sought the opinion of the Bureau of Working
be up to 15 August 1996, or the last day that private Conditions (BWC) on the issue. BWC agreed with the pro-rata
respondents worked for JPL. payment of the 13th month pay as proposed by Honda.
These benefits are given by law on the basis of the service The matter was brought before the Grievance Machinery in
actually rendered by the employee, and in the particular case accordance with the parties‘ existing CBA but when the issue
of the service incentive leave, is granted as a motivation for remained unresolved, it was submitted for voluntary
the employee to stay longer with the employer. There is no arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator invalidated Honda‘s
cause for granting said incentive to one who has already computation.
terminated his relationship with the employer.
A petition was filed with the Court of Appeals but was
Ruling: dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED IN PART. Hence, the instant petition for review.
The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 62631 are hereby MODIFIED. The award of separation Issue:
pay is deleted. Petitioner is ordered to pay private respondents
their 13th month pay commencing from the date of Whether or not the pro-rated computation of the 13th month
employment up to 15 August 1996, as well as service incentive pay and the other bonuses in question is valid and lawful.
leave pay from the second year of employment up to 15
August 1996. No pronouncement as to costs. Ratio Decidendi:
95
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
96
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
others in the computation of the 13th-month pay, this may 100 rank-and-file employees. Moreover, a new pay scale was
only be construed as a voluntary act on its part. Putting the also prepared by respondent.
blame on the petitioner‘s payroll personnel is inexcusable.
In Davao Fruits Corporation vs. Associated Labor On June 15, 2001, respondent resumed its business
Unions, “For two to three years prior to 1999, petitioner had operations.
freely, voluntarily and continuously included in the
computation of its employees‘ thirteenth month pay, without On August 22, 2002, Darius Joves and Debbie Planas, claiming
the payments for sick, vacation and maternity leave, premium to be local officers of the National Federation of Labor, filed a
for work done on rest days and special holidays, and pay for Notice of Mediation before the National Conciliation and
regular holidays. The considerable length of time the Mediation Board. The issue raised in said Notice was the
questioned items had been included by petitioner indicates a Diminution of wages and other benefits through unlawful MOA.
unilateral and voluntary act on its part, sufficient in itself to
negate any claim of mistake.‖ Respondent and petitioner signed a Submission Agreement.
A company practice favorable to the employees had indeed Submitted for the resolution of the Voluntary Arbiter was the
been established and the payments made pursuant thereto, determination of whether or not there was a diminution of
ripened into benefits enjoyed by them. And any benefit and wages and other benefits through an unlawful MOA.
supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be
reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the Respondent filed with the NCMB a Manifestation that the
employer, by virtue of Sec. 10 of the Rules and Regulations persons who filed the instant complaint in the name of the
Implementing P.D. No. 851, and Art. 100 of the Labor Code of Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL have no authority to
the Philippines which prohibit the diminution or elimination by represent the Union and in reiterated in another letter its
the employer of the employees‘ existing benefits. [Tiangco vs. position that the individual union members have no standing to
Leogardo, Jr., 122 SCRA 267 (1983)] file the notice of mediation before the NCMB.
The grant of these benefits has ripened into company practice
or policy which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn. In the case The Voluntary Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of
at bar, petitioner Sevilla Trading kept the practice of including petitioners. The CA reversed the Voluntary Arbiter‘s decision.
non-basic benefits such as paid leaves for unused sick leave
and vacation leave in the computation of their 13th-month pay Thus, this petition.
for at least two (2) years. This, we rule likewise constitutes
voluntary employer practice which cannot be unilaterally Issue:
withdrawn by the employer without violating Art. 100 of the 1. Whether or not the individual members of the Union
Labor Code: have the requisite standing to question the MOA
Art. 100. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of before the NCMB; and
benefits. – Nothing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate
or in any way diminish supplements, or other employee 2. Whether or not the federation to which the local
benefits being enjoyed at the time of promulgation of this union is affiliated have the standing to do so.
Code.
Ruling: Ratio Decidendi:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The Decision 1. No. Petitioners have not been duly authorized to
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63086 dated 27 represent the union.
November 2001 and its Resolution dated 06 March 2002 are
hereby AFFIRMED. In Atlas Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission. Pursuant to Article 260 of the Labor
INSULAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL, Petitioner Code, the parties to a CBA shall name or designate
versus WATERFRONT INSULAR HOTEL DAVAO, their respective representatives to the grievance
Respondent machinery and if the grievance is unsettled in that
G.R. Nos. 174040-41, September 22, 2010 level, it shall automatically be referred to the
voluntary arbitrators designated in advance by parties
PERALTA, J.: to a CBA. Consequently, only disputes involving the
union and the company shall be referred to the
Facts: grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators.
After series of negotiations, respondent and DIHFEU-NFL As provided under the NCMB Manual of Procedures,
signed a MOA wherein respondent agreed to re-open the hotel only a certified or duly recognized bargaining
subject to certain concessions offered by DIHFEU-NFL in its representative and an employer may file a notice of
Manifesto. Respondent downsized its manpower structure to mediation, declare a strike or lockout or request
preventive mediation. The Collective Bargaining
97
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
Agreement (CBA), on the other, recognizes that benefits of petitioner's intermittent workers contending that it
DIHFEU-NFL is the exclusive bargaining is a deviation from the true intent of the parties that
representative of all permanent employees. The negotiated the CBA; that it would violate the principle in labor
inclusion of the word NFL after the name of the local laws that benefits already extended shall not be taken away
union merely stresses that the local union is NFL's and that it would result in discrimination between the non-
affiliate. It does not, however, mean that the local intermittent and the intermittent workers of the petitioner-
union cannot stand on its own. The local union owes
company.
its creation and continued existence to the will of its
members and not to the federation to which it
belongs. The spring cannot rise higher than its Issue:
source, so to speak.
Whether or not intermittent workers are entitled to
Ruling: commutation of their unenjoyed sick leave benefits with pay.
98
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
99
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
100
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
contracting for sale and distribution as an independent and Yes. In De Los Santos v. NLRC, the character of the business,
self-contained operation is a legitimate contract, but the pure i.e., whether as labor-only contractor or as job contractor,
supply of manpower with the task of assisting in sales and should be measured in terms of, and determined by, the
distribution controlled by a principal falls within prohibited criteria set by statute. The parties cannot dictate by the mere
labor-only contracting. Consequently, the contracted expedience of a unilateral declaration in a contract the
personnel, engaged in component functions in the main character of their business.
business of the company under the latter‘s supervision and
control, cannot but be regular company employees. The Court has observed that:
First, petitioners worked at LSC‘s premises, and nowhere else.
Ruling: Other than the provisions of the Agreement, there was no
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the showing that it was BMSI which established petitioners‘
petition and accordingly AFFIRM the challenged decision and working procedure and methods, which supervised petitioners
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 102988. in their work, or which evaluated the same. There was
Costs against the petitioner. absolute lack of evidence that BMSI exercised control over
them or their work.
EMMANUEL BABAS, DANILO T. BANAG, ARTURO V.
VILLARIN, SR., EDWIN JAVIER, SANDI BERMEO, REX Second, LSC was unable to present proof that BMSI had
ALLESA, MAXIMO SORIANO, JR., ARSENIO ESTORQUE, substantial capital. There was no proof pertaining to the
and FELIXBERTO ANAJAO, petitioners, vs LORENZO contractor‘s capitalization, nor to its investment in tools,
SHIPPING CORPORATION, respondent. equipment, or implements actually used in the performance or
completion of the job, work, or service that it was contracted
G.R. No. 186091, December 15, 2010
to render. What is clear was that the equipment used by BMSI
were owned by, and merely rented from, LSC.
NACHURA, J.
Third, petitioners performed activities which were
Facts:
directly related to the main business of LSC. The work of
petitioners as checkers, welders, utility men, drivers, and
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation (LSC) is a duly organized
mechanics could only be characterized as part of, or at least
domestic corporation engaged in the shipping industry. LSC
clearly related to, and in the pursuit of, LSC‘s business.
entered into a General Equipment Maintenance Repair and
Management Services Agreement (Agreement) with Best
Lastly, BMSI had no other client except for LSC, and neither
Manpower Services, Inc. (BMSI). Under the Agreement, BMSI
BMSI nor LSC refuted this finding, thereby bolstering the NLRC
undertook to provide maintenance and repair services to LSC‘s
finding that BMSI is a labor-only contractor.
container vans, heavy equipment, trailer chassis, and
generator sets. BMSI further undertook to provide checkers to
The CA erred in considering BMSI‘s Certificate of Registration
inspect all containers received for loading to and/or unloading
as sufficient proof that it is an independent contractor.
from its vessels.
Jurisprudence states that a Certificate of Registration issued by
the Department of Labor and Employment is not conclusive
Simultaneous with the execution of the Agreement, LSC leased
evidence of such status. The fact of registration simply
its equipment, tools, and tractors to BMSI. The period of lease
prevents the legal presumption of being a mere labor-only
was coterminous with the Agreement.
contractor from arising.
BMSI then hired petitioners on various dates to work at
Ruling:
LSC as checkers, welders, utility men, clerks, forklift operators,
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and the
motor pool and machine shop workers, technicians, trailer
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 103804
drivers, and mechanics.
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners Emmanuel Babas,
Danilo T. Banag, Arturo V. Villarin, Sr., Edwin Javier, Sandi
In September 2003, petitioners filed with the Labor Arbiter
Bermeo, Rex Allesa, and Arsenio Estorque are declared regular
(LA) a complaint for regularization against LSC and BMSI. On
employees of Lorenzo Shipping Corporation. Further, LSC is
October 1, 2003, LSC terminated the Agreement, effective
ordered to reinstate the seven petitioners to their former
October 31, 2003. Consequently, petitioners lost their
position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges,
employment.
and to pay full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time
BMSI asserted that it is an independent contractor. It averred
compensation was withheld up to the time of actual
that it was willing to regularize petitioners; however, some of
reinstatement.
them lacked the requisite qualifications for the job. LSC
No pronouncement as to costs.
averred that petitioners were employees of BMSI and were
assigned to LSC by virtue of the Agreement. BMSI is an
AVELINO S. ALILIN v. PETRON CORPORATION
independent job contractor with substantial capital or
GR No. 177592, Jun 09, 2014
investment in the form of tools, equipment, and machinery
necessary in the conduct of its business. The Agreement
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
between LSC and BMSI constituted legitimate job contracting.
Thus, petitioners were employees of BMSI and not of LSC.
FACTS:
The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioners‘ complaint on
Petron is a domestic corporation engaged in the oil
the ground that petitioners were employees of BMSI. It was
business. It owns several bulk plants in the country for
BMSI which hired petitioners, paid their wages, and exercised
receiving, storing and distributing its petroleum products.
control over them. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter.
In 1968, Romualdo D. Gindang Contractor started recruiting
laborers for fielding to Petron's Mandaue Bulk Plant. His
Issue:
son took over the business and continued to provide
Whether or not respondent was engaged in labor-only
manpower services to Petron. On June 1, 2000, Petron and
contracting.
RDG entered into a Contract for Services for the period from
June 1, 2000 to May 31, 2002, whereby RDG undertook to
Ratio Decidendi:
provide Petron with janitorial, maintenance, tanker receiving,
101
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
packaging and other utility services in its Mandaue Bulk not its employees but of Lancer and that they pay Lancer in
Plant. This contract was extended on July 31, 2002 and lump sum for the services rendered. petitioner objects to the
further extended until September 30, 2002. Upon expiration finding that it is engaged in labor-only contracting.
thereof, no further renewal of the service contract was done.
Alleging that they were barred from continuing their services ISSUE:
on October 16, 2002, filed a Complaint[10] for illegal dismissal,
underpayment of wages, damages and attorney's fees against Whether Lancer was an agent of the Petitioner
Petron and RDG on November 12, 2002. Petitioners did not
deny that RDG hired them and paid their salaries. They,
however, claimed that the latter is a labor-only contractor,
which merely acted as an agent of Petron, their true
employer. RATIO DECIDENDI:
They asseverated that their jobs, which are directly related to
Petron's business, entailed them to work inside the premises of Lancer was a "labor only" contractor. The ratio of Lancers
Petron using the required equipment and tools furnished by it authorized capital stock of P 400,000.00 as against its
and that they were subject to Petron's supervision. subscribed and paid-up capital stock of P 25,000.00 shows the
RDG alleged that Petron directly supervised their activities; inadequacy of its capital investment necessary to maintain its
they performed jobs necessary and desirable to Petron's day-to-day operations. And while the Court does not set an
business; Petron provided petitioners with supplies, tools and absolute figure for what it considers substantial capital for an
equipment used in their jobs; and that petitioners' workplace independent job contractor, it measures the same against the
since the start of their employment was at Petron's bulk plant type of work which the contractor is obligated to perform for
in Mandaue City. RDG denied liability over petitioners' claim of the principal.27ςrνll Moreover, the nature of respondents
illegal dismissal and further argued that Petron cannot work was directly related to the petitioners business.
capitalize on the service contract to escape liability. The marked disparity between the petitioners actual
Petron, on the other hand, maintained that RDG is an capitalization (P25,000.00) and the resources needed to
independent contractor and the real employer of the maintain its business, supports the finding that Lancer was,
petitioners. It was RDG which hired and selected petitioners, indeed, a labor-only contractor.
paid their salaries and wages, and directly supervised their
work RULING:
102
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
file employees and their forwarders employees serving as its in the usual business or trade of P&G, then they are its regular
clerks, material handlers, system encoders and general clerks employees.
do not have the same functions as regular company P&G also contends that the Labor Code neither defines nor
employees. limits which services or activities may be validly outsourced. It
insists that the determination of whether to engage the
ISSUE: services of a job contractor or to engage in direct hiring is
within the ambit of management prerogative.
Whether the contracting out arrangement is valid
ISSUE:
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Yes. the petitioner was within its right in entering the RATIO DECIDENDI:
forwarding agreements with the forwarders as an exercise of
its management prerogative. The petitioner's declared In the instant case, the financial statements26 of Promm-Gem
objective for the arrangement is to achieve greater economy show that it
and efficiency in its operations a universally accepted business
objective and standard that the union has never questioned. In has authorized capital stock of ₱1 million and a paid-in capital,
Meralco v. Quisumbing,[25] we joined this universal or capital available for operations. Promm-Gem has also
recognition of outsourcing as a legitimate activity when we proven that it maintained its own warehouse and office space
held that a company can determine in its best judgment with a floor area of 870 square meters. It also had under its
whether it should contract out a part of its work for as long as name three registered vehicles which were used for its
the employer is motivated by good faith; the contracting is not promotional/merchandising business. Promm-Gem also has
for purposes of circumventing the law; and does not involve or other clients aside from P&G. Under the circumstances, we find
be the result of malicious or arbitrary action. that Promm-Gem has substantial investment which relates to
The forwarding arrangement complies with the requirements the work to be performed.
of Article 106[26] of the Labor Code and its implementing
rules.[27] To reiterate, no evidence or argument questions the The records also show that Promm-Gem supplied its
companys basic objective of achieving greater economy and complainant-workers with the relevant materials, such as
efficiency of operations. This, to our mind, goes a long way to markers, tapes, liners and cutters, necessary for them to
negate the presence of bad faith. perform their work. Promm-Gem also issued uniforms to them.
From the perspective of the union in the present case, we note It is also relevant to mention that Promm-Gem already
that the forwarding agreements were already in place when considered the complainants working under it as its regular,
the current CBA was signed.[30] In this sense, the union not merely contractual or project, employees.
accepted the forwarding arrangement, albeit implicitly, when it Under the circumstances, Promm-Gem cannot be considered
signed the CBA with the company. as a labor-only contractor. We find that it is a legitimate
independent contractor.
RULING:
RULING:
Wherefore, petition granted.
"Where ‗labor-only‘ contracting exists, the Labor Code itself
ALIVIADO ET. AL., VS. PROCTER AND GAMBLE establishes an employer-employee relationship between the
G.R. NO. 160506 JUNE 6, 2011 employer and the employees of the ‗labor-only‘ contractor
DEL CASTILLO, J.: Consequently, the following petitioners, having been recruited
and supplied by SAPS41 -- which engaged in labor-only
FACTS: contracting -- are considered as the employees of P&G
P&G is principally engaged in the manufacture and production The following petitioners, having worked under, and been
of different consumer and health products, which it sells on a dismissed by Promm-Gem, are considered the employees of
wholesale basis to various supermarkets and distributors.8 To Promm-Gem, not of P&G.
enhance consumer awareness and acceptance of the products,
P&G entered into contracts with Promm-Gem and SAPS for the GARDEN OF MEMORIES V. NLRC
promotion and merchandising of its products. G.R. NO. 160278 FEBRUARY 8, 2012
Petitioners worked as merchandisers of P&G from various
dates. They all individually signed employment contracts with MENDOZA, J.:
either Promm-Gem or SAPS for periods of more or less five
months at a time.5 They were assigned at different outlets, FACTS:
supermarkets and stores where they handled all the products
of P&G. They received their wages from Promm-Gem or SAPS. Petitioner Garden of Memories is engaged in the business of
SAPS and Promm-Gem imposed disciplinary measures on operating a memorial park situated at Calsadang Bago,
erring merchandisers for reasons such as habitual Pateros, Metro-Manila and selling memorial Plan and services.
absenteeism, dishonesty or changing day-off without prior Respondent Cruz, on the other hand, worked at the Garden of
notice. Memories Memorial Park as a utility worker from August 1991
Petitioners assert that Promm-Gem and SAPS are labor-only until her termination in February 1998.
contractors providing services of manpower to their client. Upon motion of Garden of Memories, Requiño was impleaded
They claim that the contractors have neither substantial capital as respondent on the alleged ground that she was its service
nor tools and equipment to undertake independent labor
contractor and the employer of Cruz.
contracting. Petitioners insist that since they had been
engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable
103
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
Cruz argued that as a regular employee of the Garden of Instead, they were regarded by Norkis Trading as members of
Memories, she could not be terminated without just or valid PASAKA, a cooperative organized under the Cooperative Code
cause. of the Philippines, and which was deemed an independent
Garden of Memories denied liability for the claims of Cruz and contractor that merely deployed the respondents to render
asserted that she was not its employee but that of Requiño, its services for Norkis Trading.4 The respondents nonetheless
independent service contractor, who maintained the park for a believed that they were regular employees of Norkis Trading.
The materials and supplies used by complainants in their work
contract price. Garden of Memories claimed that Requiño was
are supplied by respondent Norkis Trading. Despite having
a service contractor who carried an independent business and
served respondent Norkis Trading for many years and
undertook the contract of work on her own account, under her performing the same functions as regular employees,
own responsibility and according to her own manner and complainants were not accorded regular status. It was made to
method, except as to the results thereof. appear that complainants are not employees of said company
but that of respondent PASAKA.
ISSUE: The filing of the complaint for labor-only contracting allegedly
led to the suspension of the respondents‘ membership with
Whether Raquino was an independent service contractor PASAKA.
the respondents were to report back to work but during the
hearing in their NLRC case, they were informed by PASAKA
RATIO DECIDENDI: that they would be transferred to Norkis Tradings‘ sister
company, Porta Coeli Industrial Corporation (Porta Coeli), as
washers of Multicab vehicles. The respondents opposed the
Both the capitalization requirement and the power of control
transfer as it would allegedly result in a change of employers,
on the part of Requiño are wanting. Requiño was not a
from Norkis Trading to Porta Coeli. The respondents also
licensed contractor and had no substantial capital or believed that the transfer would result in a demotion since
investment in the form of tool, equipment and work premises, from being skilled workers in Norkis Trading, they would be
among others. reduced to being utility workers. both Norkis Trading and
Generally, the presumption is that the contractor is a labor- PASAKA claimed that the respondents were not employees of
only contracting unless such contractor overcomes the burden Norkis Trading. They insisted that the respondents were
of proving that it has the substantial capital, investment, tools members of PASAKA, which served as an independent
and the like.17 In the present case, though Garden of contractor that merely supplied services to Norkis International
Memories is not the contractor, it has the burden of proving Co., Inc. (Norkis International) pursuant to a job contract16
that Requiño has sufficient capital or investment since it is which PASAKA and Norkis International.
claiming the supposed status of Requiño as independent
ISSUE:
contractor. 18 Garden of Memories, however, failed to adduce
evidence purporting to show that Requiño had sufficient
PASAKA is a mere labor-only contractor
capitalization. Neither did it show that she invested in the form
of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises and other
materials which are necessary in the completion of the service RATIO DECIDENDI:
contract.
The requirement of the law in determining the existence of Yes. It is therefore evident that herein respondents are
independent contractorship is that the contractor should engaged in "labor-only" contracting as defined in Art. 106 of
undertake the work on his own account, under his own the Labor Code.
responsibility, according to his own manner and method, free First. PASAKA evidently lacked substantial capital or investment
from the control and direction of the employer except as to the required from legitimate job contractors, as reflected in its
results thereof.21 In this case, however, the Service Contract Financial Statements and Supplementary Schedules evidence
Agreement clearly indicates that Requiño has no discretion to which consisted of pictures showing machineries and
determine the means and manner by which the work is equipment which were owned by and located at the premises
performed. Rather, the work should be in strict compliance of petitioner NORKIS TRADING
with, and subject to, all requirements and standards of Garden Second. PASAKA likewise did not carry out an independent
of Memories. business from NORKIS TRADING.
Third. Private respondents performed activities directly related
RULING: to the principal business of NORKIS TRADING. Private
respondents‗ functions therefore are directly related and vital
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED to NORKIS TRADING‘s business of manufacturing of Yamaha
motorcycles.
NORKIS TRADING V. BUENAVISTA ET. AL.,
G.R. NO. 182018OCTOBER 10, 2012 Ruling:
104
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
company. BAYER reemployed petitioner through PRODUCT conduct. Most determinative among these factors is the so-
IMAGE, Respondent Bergonia being President and General called control test.
Manager. In 2001, he was directed by Pet Pascual, the newly
assigned BAYER sales representative, to submit a resignation The presence of the first requisite which refers to selection and
letter, but he refused; In 2002, he was summoned by his engagement is evidenced by a document entitled Job Offer,
immediate supervisors and was ordered to quit his whereby PRODUCT IMAGE offered to hire petitioner as crop
employment to which he refused. He then received a protection technician. On the second requisite regarding the
memorandum that his area of responsibility would be payment of wages, it was PRODUCT IMAGE that paid the
transferred to Luzon, of which memorandum he sought wages and other benefits of petitioner, pursuant to the
reconsideration but to no avail; and that Guillermo and stipulation in the contract between PRODUCT IMAGE and
Bergonia spread rumors that reached the dealers in Antique to BAYER that BAYER shall pay PRODUCT IMAGE an amount
the effect that he was not anymore connected with BAYER and based on services actually rendered without regard to the
any transaction with him would no longer be honored. number of personnel employed by PRODUCT IMAGE; and that
PRODUCT IMAGE shall faithfully comply with the provisions of
He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with NLRC against the Labor Code and hold BAYER free and harmless from any
respondents BAYER, Guillermo, PRODUCT IMAGE, and claim of its employees arising from the contract. As to the third
Bergonia. They denied the existence of an employer-employee requisite which relates to the power of dismissal, and the
relationship between BAYER and petitioner, that his work was fourth requisite which relates to the power of control, both
occasioned by Contract of Promotional Services had executed powers are vested in PRODUCT IMAGE. The Contract of
with PRODUCT IMAGE whereby PRODUCT IMAGE was to Promotional Services provides that PRODUCT IMAGE shall have
promote and market BAYER products on its own account and the power to discipline its employees assigned at BAYER, such
in its own manner and method. That as an independent that no control whatsoever shall be exercised by BAYER over
contractor, PRODUCT IMAGE retained the exclusive power of those personnel on the manner and method by which they
control over petitioner as it assigned full-time supervisors to perform their duties, and that all directives, complaints, or
exercise control and supervision over its employees assigned at observations of BAYER relating to the performance of the
BAYER. They alleged that petitioner was a field worker who employees of PRODUCT IMAGE shall be addressed to the
had no fixed hours and worked under minimal supervision, his latter. The only control measure retained by BAYER over
performance being gauged only by his accomplishment reports petitioner was to act as his de facto supervisor. PRODUCT
duly certified to by BAYER acting as his de IMAGE is ineluctably the employer of petitioner.
facto supervisor; that petitioner was not dismissed, but went
on official leave, and stopped reporting for work SC held no evidence that petitioner was dismissed. What it
thereafter; and that petitioner was supposed to have been finds is that petitioner unilaterally stopped reporting for work
reassigned to South Luzon for personnel reorganization before filing a complaint for illegal dismissal. While in cases of
program, but he likewise failed to report to his new work illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving that
station. LA held respondents guilty of illegal dismissal the dismissal is for a valid or authorized cause, the employee
must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of
ISSUE: dismissal.
105
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
NLRC affirmed LA Decision and pronounced that no employer- causes, none of which were alleged or proven to exist in this
employee relationship existed between petitioner and case, the only defense of petitioner against the charge of
respondents. It reiterated the findings that Interserve was an illegal dismissal being that respondents were not its
independent contractor as evidenced by its substantial assets employees. Records also failed to show that petitioner afforded
and registration with the DOLE. CA reversed the NLRC respondents the twin requirements of procedural due
decision. The CA deemed that the respondents, who were process, i.e., notice and hearing, prior to their
tasked to deliver, distribute, and sell Coca-Cola products, dismissal. Respondents were not served notices informing
carried out functions directly related and necessary to the main them of the particular acts for which their dismissal was
business of petitioner. The appellate court finally noted that sought. Nor were they required to give their side regarding the
certain provisions of the Contract of Service between petitioner charges made against them. Certainly, the respondents
and Interserve suggested that the latters undertaking did not dismissal was not carried out in accordance with law and,
involve a specific job, but rather the supply of manpower. therefore, illegal.[48]
106
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of file. Metrobank did not reply to their requests. Metrobank‘s
service, or other logical bases of differentiation. The issue of First Vice-President Paul Lim, Jr. informed Patag and Flora of
whether or not a wage distortion exists as a consequence of their ineligibility to the improved officers benefits as they had
the grant of a wage increase to certain employees, is a already ceased their employment and were no longer officers
question of fact; and as a rule, factual findings in labor cases, of the bank. Patag and Flora filed with LA their consolidated
where grounded on substantial evidence. It indeed appears complaint against Metrobank for underpayment of retirement
that the clear mandate of those issuances was merely to benefits and damages, asserting that pursuant to the 1998
increase the prevailing minimum wages of particular employee Officers Benefits Memorandum, they were entitled to additional
groups. There were no across-the-board increases to all retirement benefits. LA dismissed the complaint of Patag and
employees; increases were required only as regards those Flora. NLRC partially granted the appeal and directed
specified therein. It was therefore incorrect for the UNION to Metrobank to pay Patag and Flora their unpaid beneficial
claim that all its members became automatically entitled to improvements under the 1998 Officers Benefits Memorandum.
across-the-board increases upon the effectivity of the Decrees
and Wage Orders in question. And even if there were wage ISSUE:
distortions, which is not the case here, the appropriate remedy
thereunder prescribed is for the employer and the union to Whether or not, respondents can still recover higher benefits
negotiate to correct them; or, if the dispute be not thereby under the 1998 Officers Benefits Memorandum despite the fact
resolved, to thresh out the controversy through the grievance that they have compulsorily retired prior to the issuance of said
procedure in the collective bargaining agreement, or through memorandum and did not meet the condition therein requiring
conciliation or arbitration. them to be employed.
A review of the records convinces this Court that respondent
NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in holding that RATIO DECIDENDI:
no wage distortion was demonstrated by the UNION. It was, to
be sure, incumbent on the UNION to prove by substantial No. To be considered a company practice, the giving of the
evidence its assertion of the existence of a wage distortion. It benefits should have been done over a long period of time,
presented no such evidence to establish, as required by the and must be shown to have been consistent and
law, what, if any, were the designed quantitative differences in deliberate. The test or rationale of this rule on long
wage or salary rates between employee groups, and if there practice requires an indubitable showing that the employer
were any severe contractions or elimination of these agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing fully well that
quantitative differences. said employees are not covered by the law requiring payment
thereof.
The Court agrees that the claimed wage distortion was actually Petitioner Metrobank favorably adjusted its officers benefits,
a result of the UNIONS failure to appreciate various including retirement benefits, after the approval of each CBA
circumstances relating to the employment of the thirteen with the rank and file employees, to be effective every January
employees. 1st of the same year as the CBAs approval, and without any
Neither did respondent Commission gravely abuse its discretion condition regarding the date of employment of the officer,
in ruling against the UNION on the issue of underpayment of from 1986 to 1997 or for about eleven (11) years.
wages. A comparative analysis of the wages of the Hotels
employees from 1978 to 1984 vis a vis the minimum wages It is the jurisprudential rule that where there is an established
fixed by law for the same period reveals that at no time during employer practice of regularly, knowingly and voluntarily
the said period was there any underpayment of wages by the granting benefits to employees over a significant period of
respondent Hotel. On the contrary, the prevailing monthly time, despite the lack of a legal or contractual obligation on
salaries of the subject hotel employees appear to be and the part of the employer to do so, the grant of such benefits
above the minimum amounts required under the applicable ripens into a vested right of the employees and can no longer
Presidential Decrees and Wage Orders. be unilaterally reduced or withdrawn by the employer.
When Metrobank opted to impose a new condition in its
RULING: Officers Benefits Memorandum dated June 10, 1998, it already
had knowledge of respondents requests. Indeed, the
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of respondent imposition of the said condition shortly after respondents made
Commission promulgated on September 11, 1992 -- reversing their requests is suspicious, to say the least. Such conduct on
the judgment of the Labor Arbiter and dismissing the UNIONS the part of Metrobank deserves no sympathy from this Court.
complaint - - being based on substantial evidence and in
accord with applicable laws and jurisprudence, as well as said It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a
Commissions Resolution dated November 24, 1992 -- denying laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the
reconsideration -- are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. evidence or in the interpretation of agreements and writings
should be resolved in the formers favor. The policy is to extend
METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY, the applicability to a greater number of employees who can
Petitioner, vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance
COMMISSION, FELIPE A. PATAG and BIENVENIDO C. with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and
FLORA, Respondents. protection to labor. This principle gives us even greater reason
G.R. No. 152928 June 18, 2009 to affirm the findings of the CA.
107
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
108
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
109
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
Certificate of Registration of Interserve with BIR; (3) ITR with cases, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely
Audited Financial Statements of Interserve for 2001; and (4) as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the
Certificate of Registration of Interserve as an independent workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were
contractor issued by DOLE. directly employed by him.
The Secretary of Labor may, by appropriate regulations, The foregoing provisions shall be without prejudice to the
restrict or prohibit the contracting out of labor to protect the application of Article 248(C) of the Labor Code, as amended.
rights of workers established under this Code. In so prohibiting
or restriction, he may make appropriate distinctions between Substantial capital or investment refers to capital stocks and
labor-only contracting and job contracting as well as subscribed capitalization in the case of corporations, tools,
differentiations within these types of contracting and equipment, implements, machineries and work premises,
determine who among the parties involved shall be considered actually and directly used by the contractor or subcontractor in
the employer for purposes of this Code, to prevent any the performance or completion of the job, work, or service
violation or circumvention of any provision of this Code. contracted out.
There is labor-only contracting where the person supplying The right to control shall refer to the right reversed to the
workers to an employee does not have substantial capital or person for whom the services of the contractual workers are
investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work performed, to determine not only the end to be achieved, but
premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
by such persons are performing activities which are directly (Emphasis supplied.)
related to the principal business of such employer. In such
110
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
When there is labor-only contracting, there is work or task which Interserve was supposed to accomplish for
employer-employee relationship between the principal petitioner becomes even more evident, considering that
and the contractual employee the Articles of Incorporation of Interserve states that its
primary purpose is to operate, conduct, and maintain the
When there is labor-only contracting, Section 7 of the same business of janitorial and allied services. But respondents were
implementing rules, describes the consequences thereof: hired as salesmen and leadman for petitioner. The Court
cannot, under such ambiguous circumstances, make a
Section 7. Existence of an employer-employee relationship. reasonable determination if Interserve had substantial capital
The contractor or subcontractor shall be considered the or investment to undertake the job it was contracting with
employer of the contractual employee for purposes of petitioner.
enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code and other social
legislation. The principal, however, shall be solidarily liable with Burden of proof of substantial capital rests in the
the contractor in the event of any violation of any provision of contractor, or in its absence, the principal claiming it to
the Labor Code, including the failure to pay wages. be an independent contractor
The principal shall be deemed the employer of the contractual The contractor, not the employee, has the burden of proof that
employee in any of the following case, as declared by a it has the substantial capital, investment, and tool to engage in
competent authority: job contracting. Although not the contractor itself (since
Interserve no longer appealed the judgment against it by the
a. where there is labor-only contracting; or Labor Arbiter), said burden of proof herein falls upon petitioner
b. where the contracting arrangement falls within who is invoking the supposed status of Interserve as an
the prohibitions provided in Section 6 (Prohibitions) hereof. independent job contractor. Noticeably, petitioner failed to
submit evidence to establish that the service vehicles and
equipment of Interserve, valued at P510,000.00
According to the foregoing provision, labor-only contracting and P200,000.00, respectively, were sufficient to carry out its
would give rise to: (1) the creation of an employer-employee service contract with petitioner. Certainly, petitioner could have
relationship between the principal and the employees of the simply provided the courts with records showing the deliveries
contractor or sub-contractor; and (2) the solidary liability of that were undertaken by Interserve for the Lagro area, the
the principal and the contractor to the employees in the event type and number of equipment necessary for such task, and
of any violation of the Labor Code. the valuation of such equipment. Absent evidence which a
legally compliant company could have easily provided, the
Even if employees are not performing activities Court will not presume that Interserve had sufficient
indispensable to the business of the principal, labor- investment in service vehicles and equipment, especially since
contracting may still exist if the contractor does not respondents allegation that they were using equipment, such
demonstrate substantial capital or investment as forklifts and pallets belonging to petitioner, to carry out
their jobs was uncontroverted.
The law clearly establishes an employer-employee relationship
between the principal employer and the contractors employee Interserve did not exercise the right to control the
upon a finding that the contractor is engaged in labor-only performance of the work of the respondents
contracting. Article 106 of the Labor Code categorically
states: There is labor-only contracting where the person The lack of control of Interserve over the respondents can be
supplying workers to an employee does not have substantial gleaned from the Contract of Services between Interserve (as
capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, the CONTRACTOR) and petitioner (as the CLIENT).
machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers
recruited and placed by such persons are performing activities Paragraph 3 of the Contract specified that the personnel of
which are directly related to the principal business of such contractor Interserve, which included the respondents, would
employer. Thus, performing activities directly related to the comply with CLIENT as well as CLIENTs policies, rules and
principal business of the employer is only one of the two regulations. It even required Interserve personnel to subject
indicators that labor-only contracting exists; the other is lack of themselves to on-the-spot searches by petitioner or its duly
substantial capital or investment. The Court finds that both authorized guards or security men on duty every time the said
indicators exist in the case at bar. personnel entered and left the premises of petitioner. Said
paragraph explicitly established the control of petitioner over
Interserve has no substantial capital; it is impossible to the conduct of respondents. Although under paragraph 4 of
measure whether or not there is substantial capital the same Contract, Interserve warranted that it would exercise
because the Contract between Coca-Cola and the necessary and due supervision of the work of its
Interserve does not specify the work or the project personnel, there is a dearth of evidence to demonstrate the
that needs to be performed or completed. extent or degree of supervision exercised by Interserve over
respondents or the manner in which it was actually
At the outset, the Court clarifies that although Interserve has exercised. There is even no showing that Interserve had
an authorized capital stock amounting toP2,000,000.00, representatives who supervised respondents work while they
only P625,000.00 thereof was paid up as of 31 December were in the premises of petitioner.
2001. The Court does not set an absolute figure for what it
considers substantial capital for an independent job contractor, Also significant was the right of petitioner under paragraph 2
but it measures the same against the type of work which the of the Contract to request the replacement of the
contractor is obligated to perform for the principal. However, CONTRACTORS personnel. True, this right was conveniently
this is rendered impossible in this case since the Contract qualified by the phrase if from its judgment, the jobs or the
between petitioner and Interserve does not even specify the projects being done could not be completed within the time
work or the project that needs to be performed or completed specified or that the quality of the desired result is not being
by the latters employees, and uses the dubious phrase tasks achieved, but such qualification was rendered meaningless by
and activities that are considered contractible under existing the fact that the Contract did not stipulate what work or job
laws and regulations. Even in its pleadings, petitioner carefully the personnel needed to complete, the time for its completion,
sidesteps identifying or describing the exact nature of the or the results desired. The said provision left a gap which could
services that Interserve was obligated to render to enable petitioner to demand the removal or replacement of
petitioner. The importance of identifying with particularity the any employee in the guise of his or her inability to complete a
111
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
project in time or to deliver the desired result. The power to GR NO. 106341, SEP 02, 1994
recommend penalties or dismiss workers is the strongest
indication of a companys right of control as direct employer. FACTS:
Paragraph 4 of the same Contract, in which Interserve Petitioner Villarama was charged with sexual harassment by
warranted to petitioner that the former would provide relievers Divina Gonzaga, a clerk-typist assigned in his department. The
and replacements in case of absences of its personnel, raises humiliating experience compelled her to resign from work. The
another red flag. An independent job contractor, who is letter prompted Mr. Leopoldo Prieto, President of Golden
answerable to the principal only for the results of a certain Donuts, Inc., to call petitioner to a meeting then required to
work, job, or service need not guarantee to said principal the explain the letter against him. It appears that petitioner agreed
daily attendance of the workers assigned to the latter. An to tender his resignation. Private respondent moved swiftly to
independent job contractor would surely have the discretion separate petitioner. Thus, private respondent approved
over the pace at which the work is performed, the number of petitioner's application for leave of absence with pay. It also
employees required to complete the same, and the work issued an inter-office memorandum, advising "all concerned"
schedule which its employees need to follow. that petitioner was no longer connected with the company. Mr.
Prieto sent a letter to petitioner confirming their agreement
As the Court previously observed, the Contract of Services that petitioner would be officially separated from the private
between Interserve and petitioner did not identify the work respondent. For his failure to tender his resignation, petitioner
needed to be performed and the final result required to be was dismissed by private respondent. Feeling aggrieved,
accomplished. Instead, the Contract specified the type of petitioner filed an illegal dismissal case 2 against private
workers Interserve must provide petitioner (Route Helpers, respondent.
Salesmen, Drivers, Clericals, Encoders & PD) and their
qualifications (technical/vocational course graduates, physically Labor Arbiter Salimar V. Nambi held that due process was not
fit, of good moral character, and have not been convicted of observed in the dismissal of petitioner and there was no valid
any crime). The Contract also states that, to carry out the cause for dismissal. On appeal to NLRC, it reversed prior
undertakings specified in the immediately preceding decision of LA.
paragraph, the CONTRACTOR shall employ the necessary
personnel, thus, acknowledging that Interserve did not yet ISSUE:
have in its employ the personnel needed by petitioner and
would still pick out such personnel based on the criteria whether there was valid cause to terminate petitioner.
provided by petitioner. In other words, Interserve did not
obligate itself to perform an identifiable job, work, or service RATIO DECIDENDI:
for petitioner, but merely bound itself to provide the latter with
specific types of employees. These contractual provisions Petitioner claims that his alleged immoral act was
strongly indicated that Interserve was merely a recruiting and unsubstantiated, hence, he could not be dismissed. We hold
manpower agency providing petitioner with workers otherwise. The records show that petitioner was confronted
performing tasks directly related to the latters principal with the charge against him. Initially, he voluntarily agreed to
business. be separated from the company. He took a leave of absence
preparatory to this separation. This agreement was confirmed
Certification issued by DOLE is not sufficient to prove by the letter to him by Mr. Prieto dated August 7, 1989. A few
independent contractorship days after, petitioner reneged on the agreement. He refused to
be terminated on the ground that the seriousness of his
The certification issued by the DOLE stating that Interserve is offense would not warrant his separation from service. So he
an independent job contractor does not sway this Court to take alleged in his letter to Mr. Prieto dated August 16, 1989. But
it at face value, since the primary purpose stated in the Articles even in this letter, petitioner admitted his "error" vis-a-vis Miss
of Incorporation of Interserve is misleading. According to its Gonzaga. As a manager, petitioner should know the
Articles of Incorporation, the principal business of Interserve is evidentiary value of his admissions. Needless to stress, he
to provide janitorial and allied services. The delivery and cannot complain there was no valid cause for his separation.
distribution of Coca-Cola products, the work for which Moreover, loss of trust and confidence is a good ground for
respondents were employed and assigned to petitioner, were dismissing a managerial employee. It can be proved by
in no way allied to janitorial services. While the DOLE may substantial evidence which is present in the case at bench. As
have found that the capital and/or investments in tools and further observed by the Solicitor General:
equipment of Interserve were sufficient for an independent
contractor for janitorial services, this does not mean that such . . . assuming arguendo that De Jesus and Gonzaga were
capital and/or investments were likewise sufficient to maintain sweethearts and that petitioner merely acceded to the request
an independent contracting business for the delivery and of the former to drop them in the motel, petitioner acted in
distribution of Coca-Cola products. collusion with the immoral designs of De Jesus and did not
give due regard to Gonzaga's feeling on the matter and acted
HELD: in chauvinistic disdain of her honor, thereby justifying public
respondent's finding of sexual harassment. Thus, petitioner not
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition only failed to act accordingly as a good father of the family
is DENIED. The Court AFFIRMS WITH because he was not able to maintain his moral ascendancy and
MODIFICATION the Decision dated 19 February 2007 of the authority over the group in the matter of morality and
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85320. The discipline of his subordinates, but he actively facilitated the
Court DECLARES that respondents were illegally dismissed commission of immoral conduct of his subordinates by driving
and, accordingly, ORDERS petitioner to reinstate them his car into the motel.
without loss of seniority rights, and to pay them full back
wages computed from the time their compensation was As a managerial employee, petitioner is bound by a more
withheld up to their actual reinstatement. Costs against the exacting work ethics. He failed to live up to this higher
petitioner. standard of responsibility when he succumbed to his moral
perversity. And when such moral perversity is perpetrated
SO ORDERED. against his subordinate, he provides justifiable ground for his
dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. It is the right, nay,
DELFIN VILLARAMA VS NLRC
112
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
the duty of every employer to protect its employees from over ISSUE:
sexed superiors.
Was Libres accorded due process when the MEC denied his
To be sure, employers are given wider latitude of discretion in request for personal confrontatiom?
terminating the employment of managerial employees on the
ground of lack of trust and confidence. HELD:
HELD:
Yes Petition denied.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed resolution of
public respondent is hereby AFFIRMED WITH RATIO:
MODIFICATION that the award of separation pay is
DELETED. Private respondent is ordered to pay petitioner the On not strictly applying RA 7877- Republic Act No. 7877 was
amount of P1,000.00 for non-observance of due process, and not yet in effect at the time of the occurrence of the act
the equivalent amount of his unused vacation/sick leave and complained of. It was still being deliberated upon in Congress
proportionate 13th month pay. No pronouncement as to costs. when petitioner‘s case was decided by the Labor Arbiter. As a
SO ORDERED. rule, laws shall have no retroactive effect unless otherwise
provided, or except in a criminal case when
LIBRES V NLRC G.R. NO. 123737. MAY 28, 1999 their application will favor the accused. Hence, the
Labor Arbiter have to rely on the MEC report and the
J. Bellosillo common connotation of sexual harassment as it is generally
understood by the public. Faced with the same predicament,
FACTS: the NLRC had to agree with the Labor Arbiter. In so doing, the
NLRC did not commit any abuse of discretion in affirming the
Petitioner Carlos G. Libres, an electrical engineer, was holding decision of the Labor Arbiter.
a managerial position with National Steel Corporation (NSC)
as Assistant Manager. He was then asked to comment On the Villarama afterthought-it was both fitting and
regarding the charge of sexual harrassment filed against him appropriate since it singularly addressed the issue of a
by the VP's secretary Capiral. This was included with a waiver managerial employee committing sexual harassment on a
of his right tobe heard once he didn't comment. subordinate. The disparity in the periods of filing the
complaints in the two (2) cases did not in any way reduce this
On 14 August 1993 petitioner submitted his written case into insignificance. On the contrary, it even invited the
explanation denying the accusation against him and offering to attention of the Court to focus on sexual harassment as a just
submit himself for clarificatory interrogation. and valid cause for termination. Whereas petitioner Libres was
only meted a 30-day suspension by the NLRC, Villarama, in the
The Management Evaluation Committee said that "touching a other case was penalized with termination. As a managerial
female subordinate's hand and shoulder, caressing her nape employee, petitioner is bound by more exacting work
and telling other people that Capiral was the one who hugged ethics. He failed to live up to his higher standard of
and kissed or that she responded to the sexual advances are responsibility when he succumbed to his moral perversity. And
unauthorized acts that damaged her honor." They suspended when such moral perversity is perpetrated against his
Libres for 30 days without pay. subordinate, he provides a justifiable ground for his dismissal
for lack of trust and confidence.
He filed charges against the corporation in the Labor Arbiter,
but the latter held that the company acted with due process ―It is the the duty of every employer to protect his employees
and that his punishment was only mild. from oversexed superiors.‖ Public respondent therefore is
Moreover, he assailed the NLRC decision as without basis due correct in its observation that the Labor Arbiter was in fact
to the massaging of her shoulders never ―discriminated lenient in his application of the law and jurisprudence for which
against her continued employment,‖ ―impaired her rights and petitioner must be grateful for.
privileges under the Labor Code,‖ or ―created a hostile,
intimidating or offensive environment.‖ As pointed out by the Solicitor General, it could be expected
since Libres was Capiral‘s immediate superior. Fear of
He claimed that he wasn't guaranteed due process because he retaliation and backlash, not to forget the social humiliation
wasn't given the right be heard. This was due to his demand and embarrassment that victims of this human frailty usually
for personal confrontation not being recognized by the MEC. suffer, are all realities that Capiral had to contend
with. Moreover, the delay did not detract from the truth
In the Supreme Court, petitioner assailed the failure of the derived from the facts. Petitioner Libres never questioned the
NLRC to strictly apply RA No. 7877 or the law against sexual veracity of Capiral‘s allegations. In fact his narration even
harassment to the instant case. Moreover, petitioner also corroborated the latter‘s assertion in several material
contends that public respondent‘s reliance on Villarama v. points. He only raised issue on the complaint‘s protracted
NLRC and Golden Donuts was misplaced. He draws attention filing.
to victim Divina Gonzaga‘s immediate filing of her letter of
resignation in the Villarama case as opposed to the one year On the question of due process- Requirements were
delay of Capiral in filing her complaint against him. He now sufficiently complied with. Due process as a constitutional
surmises that the filing of the case against him was merely an precept does not always and in all situations require a trial
afterthought and not borne out of a valid complaint, hence, type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is
the Villarama case should have no bearing on the instant case. notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to
explain or defend himself. The essence of due process is
simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one‘s side, or an
113
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling sexual harassment is committed by an employer, manager,
complained of. supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
It is undeniable that petitioner was given a Notice of authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a
Investigation informing him of the charge of sexual work or training or education environment, demands, requests
harassment as well as advising him to submit a written or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for
explanation regarding the matter; that he submitted his
submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
written explanation to his superior. The VP further allowed him
to air his grievance in a private session He was given more (a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual
than adequate opportunity to explain his side and air his harassment is committed when:
grievances.
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the
Personal confrontation was not necessary. Homeowners v hiring or in the employment, re-employment or
NLRC- litigants may be heard through pleadings, continued employment of said individual, or in
written explanations, position papers, memoranda or oral granting said individual favorable compensation,
arguments. terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the
refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting,
MARIA LOURDES DOMINGO VS ROGELIO AYALA segregating or classifying the employee which in a
way would discriminate, deprive or diminish
G.R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely
affect said employee;
FACTS:
(2) The above acts would impair the employee‘s
On November 16, 1998, Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo),
rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating,
for sexual harassment against Rayala before Secretary
hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
Bienvenido Laguesma of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). To support the Complaint, Domingo
Even if we were to test Rayala‘s acts strictly by the standards
executed an Affidavit narrating the incidences of sexual
set in Section 3, RA 7877, he would still be administratively
harassment complained of. After the last incident narrated,
liable. It is true that this provision calls for a ―demand, request
Domingo filed for leave of absence and asked to be
or requirement of a sexual favor.‖ But it is not necessary that
immediately transferred. Thereafter, she filed the Complaint
the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be
for sexual harassment on the basis of Administrative Order No.
articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be
250, the Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7877 in the
discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender.
Department of Labor and Employment.
Holding and squeezing Domingo‘s shoulders, running his
fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having
Upon receipt of the Complaint, the DOLE Secretary referred
inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money
the Complaint to the OP, Rayala being a presidential
allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future
appointee. The OP, through then Executive Secretary Ronaldo
privileges, and making statements with unmistakable sexual
Zamora, ordered Secretary Laguesma to investigate the
overtones – all these acts of Rayala resound with deafening
allegations in the Complaint and create a committee for such
clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.
purpose.
HELD:
The Committee heard the parties and received their respective
evidence. On March 2, 2000, the Committee submitted its
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the
report and recommendation to Secretary Laguesma. It found
October 18, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
Rayala guilty of the offense charged and recommended the
SP No. 61026 is AFFIRMED. Consequently, the petitions in
imposition of the minimum penalty provided under AO 250,
G.R. Nos. 155831, 155840, and 158700 are DENIED. No
which it erroneously stated as suspension for six (6) months.
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Rayala filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the OP
denied. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65 of REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP VS ERLINDA
the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure which was also denied. CASTANEDA
G.R. Nos. 169295-96, November 20, 2006
Rayala argued that his acts does not constitute sexual
harassment because for it to exist, there must be a demand, FACTS:
request or requirement of sexual favor.
The present controversy began when private respondent,
ISSUE: Erlinda Castaneda ("Erlinda") instituted a complaint for illegal
dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime
Whether or not Rayala commited sexual harassment. services, non-payment of service incentive leave pay and non-
payment of 13th month pay against Remington before the
RATIO DECIDENDI: NLRC. Erlinda alleged that she started working as company
cook for Remington, a corporation engaged in the trading
Yes. business; that she worked for six (6) days a week, starting as
early as 6:00 a.m. because she had to do the marketing and
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA would end at around 5:30 p.m., or even later, after most of
7877. Section 3 thereof defines work-related sexual the employees, if not all, had left the company premises; that
harassment in this wise: she continuously worked with Remington until she was
unceremoniously prevented from reporting for work when
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Remington transferred to a new site. She averred that she
Harassment Defined. – Work, education or training-related reported for work at the new site only to be informed that
114
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
Remington no longer needed her services. Erlinda believed of Mr. Tan and his family but also to that of the petitioner‘s
that her dismissal was illegal because she was not given the employees, makes her fall squarely within the definition of a
notices required by law; hence, she filed her complaint for regular employee under the doctrine enunciated in the Apex
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, salary Mining case. That she works within company premises, and
differentials, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and that she does not cater exclusively to the personal comfort of
10% attorney‘s fees. Mr. Tan and his family, is reflective of the existence of the
petitioner‘s right of CONTROL over her functions, which is the
ISSUE: PRIMARY indicator of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.
Whether or not Castaneda is a regular employee or a domestic
servant?
HELD:
RATIO DECIDENDI:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED for lack of
Castaneda is deemed a regular employee. merit. The assailed Decision dated January 31, 2005, and the
Resolution dated August 11, 2005, of the Court of Appeals in
In Apex Mining Company, Inc. v. NLRC, this Court held that CA-G.R. SP Nos. 64577 and 68477 are AFFIRMED. Costs
a househelper in the staff houses of an industrial company was against petitioner.
a regular employee of the said firm. We ratiocinated that: SO ORDERED.
Under Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as APEX MINING CO., INC. VS NLRC
amended, the terms ―househelper‖ or ―domestic servant‖ are G.R. NO. 94951, APRIL 22, 1991
defined as follows:
FACTS:
―The term ‗househelper‘ as used herein is synonymous to the
term ‗domestic servant‘ and shall refer to any person, whether Private respondent Sinclita Candida was employed by
male or female, who renders services in and about the petitioner Apex Mining Company, Inc. to perform laundry
employer‘s home and which services are usually necessary or services at its staff house located at Masara, Maco, Davao del
desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and Norte. While she was attending to her assigned task and she
ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of was hanging her laundry, she accidentally slipped and hit her
the employer‘s family.‖ back on a stone. She reported the accident to her immediate
The foregoing definition clearly contemplates such househelper supervisor Mila de la Rosa and to the personnel officer,
or domestic servant who is employed in the employer‘s home Florendo D. Asirit. As a result of the accident she was not able
to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment to continue with her work. She was permitted to go on leave
of the employer‘s family. Such definition covers family drivers, for medication. De la Rosa offered her the amount of P
domestic servants, laundry women, yayas, gardeners, 2,000.00 which was eventually increased to P5,000.00 to
houseboys and similar househelps. persuade her to quit her job, but she refused the offer and
preferred to return to work. Petitioner did not allow her to
xxx xxx xxx return to work and dismissed her. Private respondent filed a
request for assistance with the Department of Labor and
The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the Employment to which the latter ordered to pay monetary
family of the employer in the home of said employer. While it awards.
may be true that the nature of the work of a househelper,
domestic servant or laundrywoman in a home or in a company ISSUE:
staffhouse may be similar in nature, the difference in their
circumstances is that in the former instance they are actually Whether or not the private respondent should be treated as
serving the family while in the latter case, whether it is a househelper or domestic servant or regular employee?
corporation or a single proprietorship engaged in business or
industry or any other agricultural or similar pursuit, service is RATIO DECIDENDI:
being rendered in the staffhouses or within the premises of the
business of the employer. In such instance, they are Under Rule XIII, Section l(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as
employees of the company or employer in the business amended, the terms "househelper" or "domestic servant" are
concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular employee. defined as follows:
Petitioner contends that it is only when the househelper or The term "househelper" as used herein is synonymous to the
domestic servant is assigned to certain aspects of the business term "domestic servant" and shall refer to any person, whether
of the employer that such househelper or domestic servant male or female, who renders services in and about the
may be considered as such an employee. The Court finds no employer's home and which services are usually necessary or
merit in making any such distinction. The mere fact that the desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and
househelper or domestic servant is working within the ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of
premises of the business of the employer and in relation to or the employer's family.
in connection with its business, as in its staffhouses for its
guest or even for its officers and employees, warrants the The foregoing definition clearly contemplates such househelper
conclusion that such househelper or domestic servant is and or domestic servant who is employed in the employer's home
should be considered as a regular employee of the employer to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment
and NOT as a mere family househelper or domestic servant as of the employer's family. Such definition covers family drivers,
contemplated in Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor domestic servants, laundry women, yayas, gardeners,
Code, as amended. houseboys and other similar househelps.
In the case at bar, the petitioner itself admits in its position The definition cannot be interpreted to include househelp or
paper that respondent worked at the company premises and laundrywomen working in staffhouses of a company, like
her duty was to cook and prepare its employees‘ lunch and petitioner who attends to the needs of the company's guest
merienda. Clearly, the situs, as well as the nature of and other persons availing of said facilities. By the same token,
respondent‘s work as a cook, who caters not only to the needs it cannot be considered to extend to then driver, houseboy, or
115
PUP COLLEGE OF LAW
LABOR LAW CASES REVIEWER A.Y. 17-18 ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA
HELD:
116