LABOR

 STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

SERRANO  VS.  GALLANT  MARITIME   The   LA   rendered   a   Decision   declaring   the   dismissal   of   petitioner   illegal   and  
G.R.  No.  167614  March  24  2009   awarding  him  monetary  benefits:    the  amount  of  EIGHT  THOUSAND  SEVEN  
Austria-­‐Martinez,  J:   HUNDRED   SEVENTY   U.S.   DOLLARS   (US   $8,770.00),   representing   the  
  complainant's  salary  for  three  (3)  months  of  the  unexpired  portion  of  the  
Section  10,  Republic  Act  (R.A.)  No.  8042:   aforesaid  contract  of  employment.    The  LA  based  his  computation  on  the  
    salary   period   of   three   months   only   —   rather   than   the   entire   unexpired  
Sec.  10.  Money  Claims.  —  .  .  .  In  case  of  termination  of  overseas   portion  of  nine  months  and  23  days  of  petitioner's  employment  contract  —  
employment  without  just,  valid  or  authorized  cause  as  defined  by   applying  the  subject  clause.    
law   or   contract,   the   workers   shall   be   entitled   to   the   full    
reimbursement   of   his   placement   fee   with   interest   of   twelve   Petitioner   also   appealed   on   the   sole   issue   that   the   LA   erred   in   not   applying  
percent   (12%)   per   annum,   plus   his   salaries   for   the   unexpired   the  ruling  of  the  Court  in  Triple  Integrated  Services,  Inc.  v.  National  Labor  
portion   of   his   employment   contract   or   for   three   (3)   months   for   Relations   Commission   that   in   case   of   illegal   dismissal,   OFWs   are   entitled   to  
every  year  of  the  unexpired  term,  whichever  is  less.     their  salaries  for  the  unexpired  portion  of  their  contracts.    
   
FACTS:   The   NLRC   corrected   the   LA's   computation   of   the   lump-­‐sum   salary   awarded  
Antonio  Serrano,  a  seafarer,  was  hired  by  Gallant  Maritime  Services,  Inc.  and   to   petitioner   by   reducing   the   applicable   salary   rate   from   US$2,590.00   to  
Marlow  Navigation  Co.,  Ltd.     US$1,400.00   because   R.A.   No.   8042   "does   not   provide   for   the   award   of  
  overtime  pay,  which  should  be  proven  to  have  been  actually  performed,  and  
On  March  19,  1998,  the  date  of  his  departure,  petitioner  was  constrained   for  vacation  leave  pay."    
to  accept  a  downgraded  employment  contract  for  the  position  of  Second    
Officer  upon  the  assurance  and  representation  of  respondents  that  he   Petitioner   filed   a   Motion   for   Partial   Reconsideration,   but   this   time   he  
would  be  made  Chief  Officer  by  the  end  of  April  1998.     questioned  the  constitutionality  of  the  subject  clause.    The  NLRC  denied  the  
  motion.  Petitioner  filed  a  Petition  for  Certiorari  with  the  CA,  reiterating  the  
Respondents  did  not  deliver  on  their  promise.  Hence,  petitioner  refused  to   constitutional  challenge  against  the  subject  clause.    
stay  on  as  Second  Officer  and  was  repatriated  to  the  Philippines  on  May    
26,  1998.     The  CA  affirmed  the  NLRC  ruling  on  the  reduction  of  the  applicable  salary  
  rate;  however,  the  CA  skirted  the  constitutional  issue  raised  by  petitioner.    
Petitioner's  employment  contract  was  for  a  period  of  12  months  or  from    
March  19,  1998  up  to  March  19,  1999,  but  at  the  time  of  his  repatriation   The  Arguments  of  Petitioner:  
on  May  26,  1998,  he  had  served  only  two  (2)  months  and  seven  (7)  days  of   Petitioner   contends   that   the   subject   clause   is   unconstitutional   because   it  
his  contract,  leaving  an  unexpired  portion  of  nine  (9)  months  and  twenty-­‐   unduly   impairs   the   freedom   of   OFWs   to   negotiate   for   and   stipulate   in   their  
three  (23)  days.     overseas   employment   contracts   a   determinate   employment   period   and   a  
  fixed  salary  package.    
Petitioner  filed  with  the  Labor  Arbiter  (LA)  a  Complaint  against  respondents    
for   constructive   dismissal   and   for   payment   of   his   money   claims   in   the   total    It   also   impinges   on   the   equal   protection   clause,   for   it   treats   OFWs  
amount  of  US$26,442.73,     differently   from   local   Filipino   workers   by   putting   a   cap   on   the   amount   of  
  lump-­‐sum  salary  to  which  OFWs  are  entitled  in  case  of  illegal  dismissal,  while  

LMJT   1  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

setting  no  limit  to  the  same  monetary  award  for  local  workers  when  their   unexpired  portion  of  one  year  or  more  in  their  contracts,  but  none  on  the  
dismissal  is  declared  illegal;  that  the  disparate  treatment  is  not  reasonable   claims   of   other   OFWs   or   local   workers   with   fixed-­‐term   employment.   The  
as  there  is  no  substantial  distinction  between  the  two  groups;     subject  clause  singles  out  one  classification  of  OFWs  and  burdens  it  with  a  
  peculiar  disadvantage.    
Moreover,   petitioner   argues   that   the   decisions   of   the   CA   and   the   labor    
tribunals  are  not  in  line  with  existing  jurisprudence  on  the  issue  of  money   -­‐-­‐  
claims  of  illegally  dismissed  OFWs.   The  Government  has  failed  to  discharge  its  burden  of  proving  the  existence  
  of   a   compelling   state   interest   that   would   justify   the   perpetuation   of   the  
Lastly,   petitioner   claims   that   the   subject   clause   violates   the   due   process   discrimination  against  OFWs  under  the  subject  clause.    
clause,   for   it   deprives   him   of   the   salaries   and   other   emoluments   he   is    
entitled  to  under  his  fixed-­‐period  employment  contract.     Assuming  that,  as  advanced  by  the  OSG,  the  purpose  of  the  subject  clause  is  
  to   protect   the   employment   of   OFWs   by   mitigating   the   solidary   liability   of  
ISSUE:     placement   agencies,   such   callous   and   cavalier   rationale   will   have   to   be  
Whether  or  not  the  subject  clause  is  unconstitutional?   rejected.   There   can   never   be   a   justification   for   any   form   of   government  
  action   that   alleviates   the   burden   of   one   sector,   but   imposes   the   same  
HELD:   burden   on   another   sector,   especially   when   the   favored   sector   is   composed  
YES.  The  subject  clause  appears  facially  neutral,  for  it  applies  to  all  OFWs.   of   private   businesses   such   as   placement   agencies,   while   the   disadvantaged  
However,   a   closer   examination   reveals   that   the   subject   clause   has   a   sector  is  composed  of  OFWs  whose  protection  no  less  than  the  Constitution  
discriminatory   intent   against,   and   an   invidious   impact   on,   OFWs   at   two   commands.  The  idea  that  private  business  interest  can  be  elevated  to  the  
levels:     level  of  a  compelling  state  interest  is  odious.    
     
First,  OFWs  with  employment  contracts  of  less  than  one  year  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  OFWs   Moreover,  even  if  the  purpose  of  the  subject  clause  is  to  lessen  the  solidary  
with  employment  contracts  of  one  year  or  more;    Second,  among  OFWs  with   liability   of   placement   agencies   vis-­‐a-­‐vis   their   foreign   principals,   there   are  
employment   contracts   of   more   than   one   year;   and   Third,   OFWs   vis-­‐à-­‐vis   mechanisms  already  in  place  that  can  be  employed  to  achieve  that  purpose  
local  workers  with  fixed-­‐period  employment;     without  infringing  on  the  constitutional  rights  of  OFWs.    
   
The  subject  clause  creates  a  sub-­‐layer  of  discrimination  among  OFWs  whose   The   subject   clause   being   unconstitutional,   petitioner   is   entitled   to   his  
contract   periods   are   for   more   than   one   year:   those   who   are   illegally   salaries  for  the  entire  unexpired  period  of  nine  months  and  23  days  of  his  
dismissed   with   less   than   one   year   left   in   their   contracts   shall   be   entitled   to   employment   contract,   pursuant   to   law   and   jurisprudence   prior   to   the  
their  salaries  for  the  entire  unexpired  portion  thereof,  while  those  who  are   enactment  of  R.A.  No.  8042.    
illegally  dismissed  with  one  year  or  more  remaining  in  their  contracts  shall    
be   covered   by   the   subject   clause,   and   their   monetary   benefits   limited   to   WHEREFORE,   the   Court   GRANTS   the   Petition.   The   subject   clause   "or   for  
their  salaries  for  three  months  only.     three  months  for  every  year  of  the  unexpired  term,  whichever  is  less"  in  the  
  5th   paragraph   of   Section   10   of   Republic   Act   No.   8042   is   DECLARED  
The   subject   clause   contains   a   suspect   classification   in   that,   in   the   UNCONSTITUTIONAL.    
computation   of   the   monetary   benefits   of   fixed-­‐term   employees   who   are    
illegally  discharged,  it  imposes  a  3-­‐month  cap  on  the  claim  of  OFWs  with  an    

LMJT   2  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

SAMEER  OVERSEAS  PLACEMENT  VS.  CABILLES  ANG     Pacific  Manpower  moved  for  the  dismissal  of  petitioner’s  claims  against  it.  
G.R.  No.  170139  August  5,  2014
 It  alleged  that  there  was  no  employer-­‐employee  relationship  between  them.  
Leonen,  J.:     Therefore,  the  claims  against  it  were  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Labor  
  Arbiter.    
FACTS:    
Responding  to  an  ad  it  published  by  Sameer  Overseas  Placement  Agency,   The  Labor  Arbiter  dismissed  Joy’s  complaint  and  ruled  that  her  complaint  
Joy   C.   Cabiles   submitted   her   application   for   a   quality   control   job   in   Taiwan.   was  based  on  mere  allegations.  The  Labor  Arbiter  found  that  there  was  no  
Joy’s   application   was   accepted.     She   was   later   asked   to   sign   a   one-­‐year   excess  payment  of  placement  fees,  based  on  the  official  receipt  presented  
employment   contract   for   a   monthly   salary   of   NT$15,360.00   and   was   by  petitioner.      
required   to   pay   a   placement   fee   of   P70,000.00   when   she   signed   the    
employment  contract.   Joy   appealed   to   the   National   Labor   Relations   Commission.   The   NLRC  
  declared  that  Joy  was  illegally  dismissed  and  awarded  respondent  only  three  
Joy  was  deployed  to  work  for  Taiwan  Wacoal,  Co.,  Ltd.  (Wacoal)  on  June  26,   (3)  months  worth  of  salary  in  the  amount  of  NT$46,080,  the  reimbursement  
1997.     She   alleged   that   in   her   employment   contract,   she   agreed   to   work   as   of  the  NT$3,000  withheld  from  her,  and  attorney’s  fees  of  NT$300.    
quality  control  for  one  year  but  in  Taiwan,  she  was  asked  to  work  as  a  cutter.    
  Sameer   appealed   to   the   CA,   the   CA   affirmed   the   decision   of   the   NLRC.  
Sameer  Overseas  Placement  Agency  claims  that  on  July  14,  1997,  a  certain   Brought  to  the  fore  is  the  issue  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  last  paragraph  
Mr.   Huwang   from   Wacoal   informed   Joy,   without   prior   notice,   that   she   was   of   Sec.   10   of   R.A.   No.   8042   which   has   been   declared   unconstitutional   in  
terminated  and  that  “she  should  immediately  report  to  their  office  to  get   Serrano   v.   Gallant   Maritime   but   re-­‐enacted   by   legislation   subsequent   to  
her   salary   and   passport   and   was   asked   to   “prepare   for   immediate   Serrano.  Also  brought  for  discussion  is  the  proper  application  of  the  newly  
repatriation.”     imposed   interest   rates   on   the   pecuniary   awards   given   to   Joy   in   view   of  
Joy   claims   that   she   was   told   that   from   June   26   to   July   14,   1997,   she   only   Central  Bank  Circular  No.  799.    
earned  a  total  of  NT$9,000.15  According  to  her,  Wacoal  deducted  NT$3,000    
to  cover  her  plane  ticket  to  Manila.   ISSUES:  
  1.   W/N  the  award  of  3-­‐months’  worth  of  salary  to  Joy  was  legal  in  view  of  
On  October  15,  1997,  Joy  filed  a  complaint  with  the  NLRC  against  petitioner   the  re-­‐enactment  of  the  last  paragraph  of  Sec.  10  of  R.A.  No.  8042  which  
and  Wacoal.  She  claimed  that  she  was  illegally  dismissed.  She  asked  for  the   was  previously  declared  as  unconstitutional?  
return   of   her   placement   fee,   the   withheld   amount   for   repatriation   costs,   2.   W/N   the   new   Central   Bank   circular   on   interest   rates   applies   to   the  
payment   of   her   salary   for   23   months   as   well   as   moral   and   exemplary   award  of  reimbursement  of  placement  fee  and  other  deductions?  
damages.   She   identified   Wacoal   as   Sameer   Overseas   Placement   Agency’s    
foreign  principal.     HELD:  
  1.   NO.  In  the  hierarchy  of  laws,  the  Constitution  is  supreme.  No  branch  or  
Sameer   Overseas   Placement   Agency   alleged   that   Wacoal’s   accreditation   office   of   the   government   may   exercise   its   powers   in   any   manner  
with   petitioner   had   already   been   transferred   to   the   Pacific   Manpower   &   inconsistent   with   the   Constitution,   regardless   of   the   existence   of   any  
Management  Services,  Inc.  (Pacific)  as  of  August  6,  1997.  Thus,  petitioner   law  that  supports  such  exercise.  The  Constitution  cannot  be  trumped  
asserts  that  it  was  already  substituted  by  Pacific  Manpower.     by  any  other  law.  All  laws  must  be  read  in  light  of  the  Constitution.  Any  
  law  that  is  inconsistent  with  it  is  a  nullity.    

LMJT   3  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

  Circular  No.  799  is  applicable  only  in  loans  and  forbearance  of  money,  goods,  
Thus,  when  a  law  or  a  provision  of  law  is  null  because  it  is  inconsistent  with   or   credits,   and   in   judgments   when   there   is   no   stipulation   on   the   applicable  
the   Constitution,   the   nullity   cannot   be   cured   by   reincorporation   or   interest  rate.  Further,  it  is  only  applicable  if  the  judgment  did  not  become  
reenactment   of   the   same   or   a   similar   law   or   provision.   A   law   or   provision   final  and  executory  before  July  1,  2013.  We  add  that  Circular  No.  799  is  not  
of   law   that   was   already   declared   unconstitutional   remains   as   such   unless   applicable   when   there   is   a   law   that   states   otherwise.   While   the   Bangko  
circumstances  have  so  changed  as  to  warrant  a  reverse  conclusion.     Sentral  ng  Pilipinas  has  the  power  to  set  or  limit  interest  rates,  these  interest  
  rates  do  not  apply  when  the  law  provides  that  a  different  interest  rate  shall  
We  are  not  convinced  by  the  pleadings  submitted  by  the  parties  that  the   be  applied.  “[A]  Central  Bank  Circular  cannot  repeal  a  law.  Only  a  law  can  
situation  has  so  changed  so  as  to  cause  us  to  reverse  binding  precedent.     repeal  another  law.”    
The   new   law   puts   our   overseas   workers   in   the   same   vulnerable   position   as    
they  were  prior  to  Serrano.  Failure  to  reiterate  the  very  ratio  decidendi  of   Laws  are  deemed  incorporated  in  contracts.  “The  contracting  parties  need  
that  case  will  result  in  the  same  untold  economic  hardships  that  our  reading   not  repeat  them.  They  do  not  even  have  to  be  referred  to.  Every  contract,  
of  the  Constitution  intended  to  avoid.  Obviously,  we  cannot  countenance   thus,  contains  not  only  what  has  been  explicitly  stipulated,  but  the  statutory  
added   expenses   for   further   litigation   that   will   reduce   their   hard-­‐   earned   provisions   that   have   any   bearing   on   the   matter.”   There   is,   therefore,   an  
wages   as   well   as   add   to   the   indignity   of   having   been   deprived   of   the   implied   stipulation   in   contracts   between   the   placement   agency   and   the  
protection   of   our   laws   simply   because   our   precedents   have   not   been   overseas  worker  that  in  case  the  overseas  worker  is  adjudged  as  entitled  
followed.     to   reimbursement   of   his   or   her   placement   fees,   the   amount   shall   be  
  subject  to  a  12%  interest  per  annum.  This  implied  stipulation  has  the  effect  
2.   On  the  interest  rate,  the  Bangko  Sentral  ng  Pilipinas  Circular  No.  799  of   of   removing   awards   for   reimbursement   of   placement   fees   from   Circular  
June  21,  2013,  which  revised  the  interest  rate  for  loan  or  forbearance   No.  799’s  coverage.    
from  12%  to  6%  in  the  absence  of  stipulation,  applies  in  this  case.  The    
pertinent   portions   of   Circular   No.   799,   Series   of   2013,   read:   The   The  same  cannot  be  said  for  awards  of  salary  for  the  unexpired  portion  of  
Monetary  Board,  in  its  Resolution  No.  796  dated  16  May  2013,  approved   the  employment  contract  under  Republic  Act  No.  8042.  These  awards  are  
the  following  revisions  governing  the  rate  of  interest  in  the  absence  of   covered  by  Circular  No.  799  because  the  law  does  not  provide  for  a  specific  
stipulation  in  loan  contracts,  thereby  amending  Section  2  of  Circular  No.   interest  rate  that  should  apply.  In  sum,  if  judgment  did  not  become  final  
905,  Series  of  1982:     and   executory   before   July   1,   2013   and   there   was   no   stipulation   in   the  
  contract  providing  for  a  different  interest  rate,  other  money  claims  under  
Section   1.   The   rate   of   interest   for   the   loan   or   forbearance   of   any   money,   Section  10  of  Republic  Act  No.  8042  shall  be  subject  to  the  6%  interest  per  
goods   or   credits   and   the   rate   allowed   in   judgments,   in   the   absence   of   an   annum  in  accordance  with  Circular  No.  799.  This  means  that  respondent  is  
express   contract   as   to   such   rate   of   interest,   shall   be   six   percent   (6%)   per   also  entitled  to  an  interest  of  6%  per  annum  on  her  money  claims  from  the  
annum.     finality  of  this  judgment.    
   
Section   2.   In   view   of   the   above,   Subsection   X305.1   of   the   Manual   of    
Regulations   for   Banks   and   Sections   4305Q.1,   4305S.3   and   4303P.1   of   the    
Manual   of   Regulations   for   Non-­‐Bank   Financial   Institutions   are   hereby    
amended  accordingly.  This  Circular  shall  take  effect  on  1  July  2013.      
   

LMJT   4  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

SUNACE  INTERNATIONAL  MANAGEMENT  SERVICES,  INC.  vs.  NLRC   The   Labor   Arbiter,   rejected   Sunace’s   claim   that   the   extension   of   Divina’s  
G.R.  No.  161757  January  25,  2006
   contract   for   two   more   years   was   without   its   knowledge   and   consent   as  
Carpio-­‐Morales,  J.:   evidenced   showed   (Annex   “B”),   Sunace   and   Edmund   Wang   have   not  
  stopped   communicating   with   each   other   and   yet   the   matter   of   the  
The  theory  of  imputed  knowledge  ascribes  the  knowledge  of  the  agent  to  the   contract’s  extension  and  Sunace’s  alleged  non-­‐consent  thereto  has  not  been  
principal   not   the   other   way   around.   Also,   the   agency   between   a   foreign   categorically  established.    
principal  and  its  local  recruitment  agent  is  revoked  if  the  foreign  principal    
directly   manages   the   business   (hiring   of   employee)   entrusted   to   the   local   What  Sunace  should  have  done  was  to  write  to  POEA  about  the  extension  
recruitment  agent,  dealing  directly  with  third  persons.     and   its   objection   thereto,   copy   furnished   the   complain ant   herself,   her  
  foreign  employer,  Hang  Rui  Xiong  and  the  Taiwanese  broker,  Edmund  Wang.    
FACTS:   And  because  it  did  not,  it  is  presumed  to  have  consented  to  the  extension  
Sunace   International   Management   Services   (Sunace)   deployed   to   Taiwan   and  should  be  liable  for  anything  that  resulted  thereform.    
Divina  A.  Montehermozo  (Divina)  as  a  domestic  helper  under  a  12-­‐month      
contract  effective  February  1,  1997.  The  deployment  was  with  the  assistance   The  Labor  Arbiter  rejected  Sunace’s  argument  that  it  is  not  liable  on  account  
of  a  Taiwanese  broker,  Edmund  Wang,  President  of  Jet  Crown  International   of   Divina’s   execution   of   a   Waiver   and   Quitclaim   and   an   Affidavit   of  
Co.,  Ltd.     Desistance.  Observed  the  Labor  Arbiter:    
  “Should  the  parties  arrive  at  any  agreement  as  to  the  whole  or  any  
After  her  12-­‐month  contract  expired  on  February  1,  1998,  Divina  continued   part  of  the  dispute,  the  same  shall  be  reduced  to  writing  and  signed  
working  for  her  Taiwanese  employer,  Hang  Rui  Xiong,  for  two  more  years,   by  the  parties  and  their  respective  counsel  if  any,  before  the  Labor  
after  which  she  returned  to  the  Philippines  on  February  4,  2000.     Arbiter.  The  settlement  shall  be  approved  by  the  Labor  Arbiter  after  
  being   satisfied   that   it   was   voluntarily   entered   into   by   the   parties  
Shortly  after  her  return,  Divina  filed  a  complaint  before  the  NLRC  a gainst   and  after  having  explained  to  them  the  terms  and  consequences  
Sunace,   one   Adelaide   Perez,   the   Taiwanese   broker,   and   the   employer-­‐ thereof.   And   because   no   consideration   is   indicated   in   the  
foreign   principal   alleging   that   she   was   jailed   for   three   months   and   that   she   documents,  we  strike  them  down  as  contrary  to  law,  morals,  and  
was  underpaid.   public  policy.”    
   
Divina  filed  also  claimed  that  under  her  original  one-­‐year  contract  and  the   Sunace   elevated   the   case   to   the   Court   of   Appeals   which   dismissed   it  
2-­‐year   extended   contract   which   was   with   the   knowledge   and   consent   of   outright.  The  CA  affirmed  the  Labor  Arbiter  and  NLRCs  finding  that  Sunace  
Sunace,  amounts  representing  income  tax  and  savings  were  deducted  from   knew  of  and  impliedly  consented  to  the  extension  of  Divinas  2-­‐year  contract.  
her  salary  and  while  the  amounts  deducted  in  1997  were  refunded  to  her,   It   went   on   to   state   that   It   is   undisputed   that   Sunace   was   continually  
those  deducted  in  1998  and  1999  were  not.     communicating   with   Divina’s   foreign   employer.   It   thus   concluded   that   as  
  agent  of  the  foreign  principal,  petitioner  cannot  profess  ignorance  of  such  
For   its   part,   Sunace   alleged   that   Divina’s   2-­‐year   extension   of   her   contract   extension   as   obviously,   the   act   of   the   principal   extending   complainant’s  
was   without   its   knowledge   and   consent,   hence,   it   had   no   liability   attaching   employment  contract  necessarily  bound  it.    
to   any   claim   arising   therefrom,   and   Divina   in   fact   executed   a    
Waiver/Quitclaim   and   Release   of   Responsibility   and   an   Affidavit   of   ISSUE:  W/N  Sunace  was  solidarily  liable  with  the  foreign  principal  to  Divina  
Desistance.     as  to  the  events  which  transpired  during  her  2-­‐year  extension  in  Taiwan?  

LMJT   5  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

HELD:   examination.   Thereafter,   accused-­‐appellant   required   the   complainants   to  

NO.   Contrary   to   the   Court   of   Appeals   finding,   the   alleged   continuous   pay,  on  various  occasions,  placement  fees  and  other  expenses  incurred  in  
communication  was  with  the  Taiwanese  broker  Wang,  not  with  the  foreign   the   processing   of   their   papers   and   issued   corresponding   receipts   for   said  
employer   Xiong.     The   February   21,   2000   telefax   message   from   the   amounts.  
Taiwanese   broker   to   Sunace,   the   only   basis   of   a   finding   of   continuous    
communication.  The  message  does  not  provide  evidence  that  Sunace  was   When   complainants   failed   to   leave   for   Saudi   Arabia,   they   requested   Luis  
privy  to  the  new  contract  executed  after  the  expiration  on  February  1,  1998   “Jing”  Ramirez,  a  brother  of  complainant  Danilo  Ramirez,  to  verify  with  the  
of   the   original   contract.   That   Sunace   and   the   Taiwanese   broker   POEA   whether   accused-­‐appellant   was   licensed   to   recruit   workers   for  
communicated   regarding   Divina’s   allegedly   withheld   savings   does   not   abroad.   They   subsequently   learned   that   he   was   not   as   shown   by   the  
necessarily  mean  that  Sunace  ratified  the  extension  of  the  contract.     Certification  issued  by  the  POEA.    
   
The   theory   of   imputed   knowledge   ascribes   the   knowledge   of   the   agent,   Thereafter,   complainants   filed   against   accused-­‐appellant   complaints   for  
Sunace,  to  the  principal,  employer  Xiong,  not  the  other  way  around.23  The   Estafa  defined  under  par.  2(a),  Article  315  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code  and  
knowledge  of  the  principal-­‐foreign  employer  cannot,  therefore,  be  imputed   Illegal  Recruitment  on  a  Large  Scale.  In  due  course,  informations  for  three  
to  its  agent  Sunace.     (3)  counts  of  Estafa  (Criminal  Cases  Nos.  L-­‐3993,  L-­‐3994  &  L-­‐3996)  and  Illegal  
  Recruitment  on  a  Large  Scale  (Criminal  Case  No.  L-­‐4000)  were  filed  against  
There   being   no   substantial   proof   that   Sunace   knew   of   and   consented   to   be   accused-­‐  appellant  before  the  Regional  Trial  Court  of  Lingayen,  Pangasinan.    
bound  under  the  2-­‐year  employment  contract  extension,  it  cannot  be  said    
to  be  privy  thereto.  As  such,  it  and  its  “owner”  cannot  be  held  solidarily  liable   On   the   other   hand,   accused-­‐appellant   maintained   that   he   was   the  
for   any   of   Divina’s   claims   arising   from   the   2-­‐year   employment   extension   operations   manager   of   the   ZG   Recruitment   and   Placement   Agency.  
Furthermore,   as   Sunace   correctly   points   out,   there   was   an   implied   Unfortunately,   the   job   order   for   the   janitorial   services   was   awarded   to  
revocation  of  its  agency  relationship  with  its  foreign  principal  when,  after   Express  Placement  Agency  instead  of  ZG  Recruitment  &  Placement  agency.  
the  termination  of  the  original  employment  contract,  the  foreign  principal   Thereafter,   accused-­‐appellant   transferred   complainants’   application   for  
directly   negotiated   with   Divina   and   entered   into   a   new   and   separate   overseas   employment   to   Nora   Cunanan   of   Express   Placement   Agency.   And  
employment  contract  in  Taiwan.     also   turned   over   the   fees   paid.   When   Nora   Cunanan   absconded   with   the  
  money  of  the  complainants,  accused-­‐appellant  filed  an  estafa  case  against  
PEOPLE  VS.  MANUNGAS   Nora  Cunanan.  However,  he  was  not  able  to  attend  the  hearing  as  he  was  
G.R.  Nos.  91552-­‐55  March  10,  1994     arrested  in  connection  with  these  cases.    
Nocon,  J.:      
  ISSUE:  
FACTS:   W/N  Manungas  should  be  held  guilty  of  Estafa  and  Illegal  Recruitment?  
Fernando   Manungas,   Jr.   went   to   Tayug,   Pangasinan.   During   his   stay,    
accused-­‐appellant   was   able   to   convince   complainants   Wilfrey   Mabalot,   HELD:  
Danilo  Ramirez,  Leonardo  Estanoco  and  Crisanto  Collado  to  apply  as  janitors   YES.    
in  Saudi  Arabia.     In  the  instant  case,  accused-­‐appellant  told  complainants  to  submit  to  him  
On   April   29,   1987,   complainants   went   to   accused-­‐appellant’s   office   in   their   pictures,   birth   certificates,   NBI   clearances   and   other   necessary  
Malate,  Manila  and  paid  accused-­‐appellant  P250.00  each  for  their  medical   documents   for   the   processing   of   their   employment   in   Saudi   Arabia.  

LMJT   6  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

Thereafter,   accused-­‐appellant   collected   from   each   of   the   complainants    

payment  for  their  respective  passport,  training  fee,  placement  fee,  medical   Two  days  later,  Baloran  and  Domingo  called  Felixberto,  Cloyd,  and  Jojo  to  a  
tests  and  other  sundry  expenses  which  unquestionably  constitutes  acts  of   meeting.  Domingo  told  the  applicants  that  he  was  the  chief  engineer  of  the  
recruitment   within   the   meaning   of   the   law.   Besides,   there   is   illegal   luxury  ocean  liner  where  they  would  embark.  Another  meeting  was  held  
recruitment  when  one  gives  the  impression  of  his  ability  to  send  a  worker   on  August  16,  1994  at  the  Mandarin  Hotel  in  Makati  City  by  accused-­‐
abroad  and  there  is  evidence  that  accused-­‐appellant  had  represented  to  the   appellant,  Domingo,  Baloran,  Mendoza,  the  Leongson  spouses,  the  
complainants  that  he  could  send  them  abroad  as  janitors  in  Saudi  Arabia.   Malgapo  spouses,  and  Jojo  Bumatay.  The  applicants  were  told  by  Domingo  
And   because   of   his   representation,   complainants   gave   their   hard-­‐earned   that  they  would  be  employed  as  waiters  and  attendants  in  the  luxury  liner  
money  to  accused-­‐  appellant  in  consideration  of  the  same  representation.   and  asked  them  again  to  wait  a  while.    
(*See  Solicitor  General’s  comment  for  a  much  elaborated  explanation)    
  For  the  payment  of  the  said  processing  fee,    
A  person  who  violates  any  of  the  provisions  under  Article  13(b)  and  Article   •   FELIXBRETO   initially   paid   10,000   pesos   to   Baloran   and   asked   for  
34   of   the   Labor   Code   can   be   charged   and   convicted   separately   of   illegal   receipt  b  but  accused-­‐appellant  told  him  not  to  worry  and  assured  
recruitment   and   estafa   [Revised   Penal   Code,   Article   315,   2(a)]   because   him  that  she  would  be  responsible  if  anything  untoward  happened.  
illegal  recruitment  is  a  malum  prohibitum  where  the  criminal  intent  of  the   On  the  following  days,  Felixberto  paid  the  amount.  As  in  the  case  
accused   is   not   necessary   for   a   conviction   while   estafa   is   a   malum   in   se   of  the  first  two  payments,  no  receipt  was  given  for  the  P25,000.00.  
where  criminal  intent  of  the  accused  is  necessary  for  a  conviction.     Accused-­‐   appellant   told   him   that   she   would   turn   over   the   amount  
  to  Baloran.    
PEOPLE  VS.  GONZALES-­‐FLORES   •   In  the  case  of  RONALD  FREDERIZO,  he  paid  the  initial  amount  of  
G.R.  Nos.  138535-­‐38.  April  19,  2001
   10,000  and  later  on  mortgaged  his  land  in  Batangas  just  so  he  could  
Mendoza,  J.:     pay  the  P35,000.00  remaining  balance.    
FACTS:   •   For  LARRY  TIBOR,  he  paid  3,000  as  initial  payment  then  later  on  left  
Luz  Gonzalez-­‐  Flores  offered  employment  to  Felixberto  Leongson,  C  Cloyd   the  province  to  get  a  loan  in  order  to  settle  the  payment.    
Malgapo  and  Jojo  Bumatay  as  seaman  in  Miami,  Florida,  United  States  of      
America.  She  promised  that  she  would  fix  their  application  and  they  only    Realizing   that   they   had   been   deceived,   complainants   went   to   the   Baler  
had  to  do  was  pay  P45,000.00  as  processing  fee.     Police   Station   to   file   their   complaints   for   illegal   recruitment   and   estafa  
  against  accused-­‐  appellant,  Baloran,  Domingo,  and  Mendoza.  On  November  
Luz   Gonzalez-­‐   Flores   came   back   with   Joseph   Mendoza,   whose   brother-­‐in-­‐ 14,   1994,   complainants   went   to   the   Philippine   Overseas   Employment  
law,  was  recruiting  seamen.  Thereafter,   they  took  complainants  to  a  house   Administration   (POEA)   and   discovered   that   accused-­‐appellant   and   her  
near   Camp   Crame   where   the   latter   were   introduced   to   Andy   Baloran.   companions   did   not   have   any   license   or   authority   to   engage   in   any  
Complainant  and  his  companions  were  told  that  Baloran  was  an  employee   recruitment  activity.    
of   the   NBI   and   he   would   take   care   of   processing   the   applications   for    
employment.   Baloran   told   complainant   and   the   other   job   applicants   that   Complainants  seeks  the  reimbursement  of  their  placement  fees,  moral  
those   who   would   be   employed   would   be   paid   a   monthly   salary   of   damages  and  litigation  expenses.    
US$1,000.00,   plus   tips,   and   given   vacation   leaves   of   45   days   with   pay.    
Baloran   asked   complainant   to   submit   his   picture,   bio-­‐data,   and   birth   On   her   defense,   Accused-­‐appellant   denied   having   promised   complainants  
certificate,  which  complainant  later  did.   overseas  employment  and  having  collected  money  from  them.  According  to  

LMJT   7  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

her,  she  came  to  know  Andy  Baloran  and  Engr.  Leonardo  Domingo  through   of  accused-­‐  appellant.  As  long  as  the  prosecution  is  able  to  establish  through  
Joseph  Mendoza,  who  referred  her  and  her  son,  Noli,  to  them  in  connection   credible  testimonies  and  affidavits  that  the  accused-­‐appellant  was  involved  
with  their  own  applications  for  overseas  employment.     in  the  prohibited  recruitment,  a  conviction  for  the  offense  can  very  well  be  
  justified.  In  these  cases,  complainants  could  not  present  receipts  for  their  
The   trial   court   rendered   as   decision   finding   her   guilty   or   illegal   recruitment   payment  because  accused-­‐appellant  assured  them  she  would  take  care  of  
in  large  scale  and  estafa  in  three  (3)  counts.     their  money.    
   
ISSUE:   Direct  proof  of  previous  agreement  to  commit  a  crime  is  not  necessary  as  it  
W/N  Luz  Gonzales-­‐Flores  should  be  held  liable?     may  be  deduced  from  the  mode  in  which  the  offense  was  perpetrated,  or  
  inferred   from   the   acts   of   the   accused   which   point   to   a   joint   purpose   and  
HELD:   design.  In  these  cases,  the  fact  is  that  there  was  conspiracy  among  accused-­‐
YES.   appellant,  Domingo,  and  Baloran  in  recruiting  complainants  for  employment  
ILLEGAL  RECRUITMENT  IN  LARGE  SCALE,     overseas.   The   evidence   shows   that   each   had   a   role   in   that   conspiracy.  
the  essential  elements  of  which  are:     Domingo  posed  as  a  representative  of  the  luxury  liner  in  recruiting  crew  for  
(1)   that   the   accused   engages   in   acts   of   recruitment   and   placement   of   the  vessel.  Baloran  represented  himself  as  the  person  who  would  actually  
workers  defined  under  Art.  13  (b)  or  in  any  of  the  prohibited  activities  under   process  complainants’  travel  documents,  while  accused-­‐appellant  acted  as  
Art.  34  of  the  Labor  Code;     a   scout   for   job   applicants   and   a   collector   of   their   payments.   It   was   only  
(2)   that   the   accused   has   not   complied   with   the   guidelines   issued   by   the   Mendoza  who  did  not  misrepresent  himself  as  someone  capable  of  helping  
Secretary   of   Labor   and   Employment,   particularly   with   respect   to   the   complainants  go  abroad  nor  collect  money  from  them.    
securing  of  a  license  or  an  authority  to  recruit  and  deploy  workers,  either    
locally  or  overseas;  and     Both   elements   of   the   crime   were   established   in   these   cases,   namely,   (a)  
(3)   that   the   accused   commits   the   unlawful   acts   against   three   or   more   accused   appellant   defrauded   complainant   by   abuse   of   confidence   or   by  
persons,  individually  or  as  a  group.     means  of  deceit  and  (b)  complainant  suffered  damage  or  prejudice  capable  
  of  pecuniary  estimation  as  a  result.  Complainants  parted  with  their  money  
Accused-­‐appellant   contends   that   all   she   did   was   to   refer   complainants   to   upon   the   prodding   and   enticement   of   accused-­‐appellant   on   the   false  
Domingo,   Baloran,   and   Mendoza.   However,   under   Art.   13   (b)   of   the   Labor   pretense  that  she  had  the  capacity  to  deploy  them  for  employment  abroad.  
Code,   recruitment   includes   “referral,”   which   is   defined   as   the   act   of   In  the  end,  complainants  were  neither  able  to  leave  for  work  overseas  nor  
passing   along   or   forwarding   an   applicant   for   employment   after   initial   did  they  get  their  money  back,  thus  causing  them  damage  and  prejudice.    
interview  of  a  selected  applicant  for  employment  to  a  selected  employer,    
placement  officer,  or  bureau.  In  these  cases,  accused-­‐appellant  did  more    
than  just  make  referrals.  She  actively  and  directly  enlisted  complainants  for    
supposed  employment  abroad,  even  promising  them  jobs  as  seamen,  and    
collected  moneys  from  them.      
   
The  failure  of  complainants  to  present  receipts  to  evidence  payments  made    
to   accused-­‐   appellant   is   not   fatal   to   the   prosecution   of   these   cases.   The    
presentation  of  the  receipts  of  payments  is  not  necessary  for  the  conviction    

LMJT   8  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

  Clearly,   therefore,   the   complainant   was   respondent’s   regular  

NITTO  ENTERPRISES  VS.  NATIONAL  LABOR  RELATIONS  COMMISSION     employee  under  Article  280  of  the  Labor  Code,  as  early  as  May  28,  
G.R.  No.  114337.  September  29,  1995     1990,   who   thus   enjoyed   the   security   of   tenure   guaranteed   in  
KAPUNAN,  J.:     Section  3,  Article  XIII  of  our  1987  Constitution.”  
FACTS:    
Nitto   Enterprises,   a   company   engaged   in   the   sale   of   glass   and   aluminum   ISSUE:  W/N  Roberto  Capili  is  an  apprentice?  
products,   hired   Roberto   Capili   sometime   in   May   1990   as   an   apprentice    
machinist,  molder  and  core  maker  for  a  period  of  six  (6)  months.   HELD:  
  NO.  
Roberto  Capili  who  was  handling  a  piece  of  glass  which  he  was  working  on,   In  the  case  at  bench,  the  apprenticeship  agreement  between  petitioner  and  
accidentally  hit  and  injured  the  leg  of  an  office  secretary  who  was  treated  at   private  respondent  was  executed  on  May  28,  1990  allegedly  employing  the  
a   nearby   hospital.   Later   that   same   day,   after   office   hours,   private   latter  as  an  apprentice  in  the  trade  of  “care  maker/molder.”  On  the  same  
respondent  entered  a  workshop  within  the  office  premises  which  was  not   date,  an  apprenticeship  program  was  prepared  by  petitioner  and  submitted  
his   work   station.   There,   he   operated   one   of   the   power   press   machines   to  the  Department  of  Labor  and  Employment.  However,  the  apprenticeship  
without  authority  and  in  the  process  injured  his  left  thumb.  Petitioner  spent   Agreement  was  filed  only  on  June  7,  1990.  Notwithstanding  the  absence  of  
the  amount  of  P1,023.04  to  cover  the  medication  of  private  respondent.  The   approval  by  the  Department  of  Labor  and  Employment,  the  apprenticeship  
following  day,  Roberto  Capili  was  asked  to  resign  in  a  letter     agreement   was   enforced   the   day   it   was   signed.   Based   on   the   evidence  
  before   us,   petitioner   did   not   comply   with   the   requirements   of   the   law.   It   is  
Private   respondent   filed   before   the   NLRC   a   complaint   for   illegal   dismissal   mandated   that   apprenticeship   agreements   entered   into   by   the   employer  
and   payment   of   other   monetary   benefits.   The   Labor   Arbiter   rendered   his   and  apprentice  shall  be  entered  only  in  accordance  with  the  apprenticeship  
decision   finding   the   termination   of   private   respondent   as   valid   and   program   duly   approved   by   the   Minister   of   Labor   and   Employment.   Prior  
dismissing  the  money  claim  for  lack  of  merit.  With  the  following  reasons:   approval   by   the   Department   of   Labor   and   Employment   of   the   proposed  
First,  private  respondent  who  was  hired  as  an  apprentice  violated   apprenticeship  program  is,  therefore,  a  condition   sine  qua  non  before  an  
the  terms  of  their  agreement  when  he  acted  with  gross  negligence   apprenticeship  agreement  can  be  validly  entered  into.    
resulting   in   the   injury   not   only   to   himself   but   also   to   his   fellow    
worker.     The  act  of  filing  the  proposed  apprenticeship  program  with  the  Department  
Second,  private  respondent  had  shown  that  “he  does  not  have  the   of  Labor  and  Employment  is  a  preliminary  step  towards  its  final  approval  and  
proper   attitude   in   employment   particularly   the   handling   of   does  not  instantaneously  give  rise  to  an  employer-­‐apprentice  relationship.    
machines  without  authority  and  proper  training        
  Hence,  since  the  apprenticeship  agreement  between  petitioner  and  private  
The  NLRC  reversed  the  decision  of  the  Labor  Arbiter  and  declared  that   respondent  has  no  force  and  effect  in  the  absence  of  a  valid  apprenticeship  
private  respondent  was  a  regular  employee  and  ordered  for  the   program  duly  approved  by  the  DOLE,  private  respondent’s  assertion  that  he  
reinstatement.     was   hired   not   as   an   apprentice   but   as   a   delivery   boy   (“kargador”   or  
“we   cannot   understand   how   an   apprenticeship   agreement   filed   “pahinante”)   deserves   credence.   He   should   rightly   be   considered   as   a  
with  the  Department  of  Labor  only  on  June  7,  1990  could  be  validly   regular  employee  of  petitioner  as  defined  by  Article  280  of  the  Labor  Code.    
used  by  the  Labor  Arbiter  as  basis  to  conclude  that  the  complainant    
was   hired   by   respondent   as   a   plain   ‘apprentice’   on   May   8,   1990.    

LMJT   9  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

  Almoite  allegedly  entered  into  a  compromise  agreement  with  Atlanta.7The  

ATLANTA  INDUSTRIES  VS.  SEBOLINO   agreement   provided   that   except   for   Ramos,   Atlanta   agreed   to   pay   the  
G.R.  No.  187320.  January  26,  2011     workers  a  specified  amount  as  settlement,  and  to  acknowledge  them  at  the  
BRION,  J.
   same  time  as  regular  employees.    
FACTS:    
Aprilito   R.   Sebolino   et   al.   (Khim   V.   Costales,   Alvin   V.   Almoite,   Joseph   S.   The   NLRC   rendered   a   decision,   on   appeal,   modifying   the   ruling   of   the   labor  
Sagun,   Agosto   D.   Zaño,   Domingo   S.   Alegria,   Jr.,   Ronie   Ramos,   Edgar   arbiter,  as  follows:  (1)  withdrawing  the  illegal  dismissal  finding  with  respect  
Villagomez,   Melvin   Pedregoza,   Teofanes   B.   Chiong,   Jr.,   Leonardo   L.   dela   to  Sagun,  Mabanag,  Sebolino  and  Pedregoza;  (2)  affirming  the  dismissal  of  
Cruz,   Arnold   A.   Magalang,   and   Saturnino   M.   Mabanag   )   filed   several   the   complaints   of   dela   Cruz,   Zaño,   Magalang   and   Chiong;   (3)   approving   the  
complaints  for  illegal  dismissal,  regularization,  underpayment,  nonpayment   compromise   agreement   entered   into   by   Costales,   Ramos,   Villagomez,  
of  wages  and  other  money  claims,  as  well  as  claims  for  moral  and  exemplary   Almoite  and  Alegria,  and  (4)  denying  all  other  claims.    
damages  and  attorney’s  fees  against  the  petitioners  Atlanta  Industries,  Inc.    
(Atlanta)  and  its  President  and  Chief  Operating  Officer  Robert  Chan.  Atlanta   The   four   then   sought   relief   from   the   CA   through   a   petition   for   certiorari  
is  a  domestic  corporation  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  steel  pipes.     under  Rule  65:  
  The  CA  granted  the  petition  based  on  the  following  findings    
The  complainants  alleged  that  they  had  attained  regular  status  as  they  were   1.   The   respondents   were   already   employees   of   the   company   before   they  
allowed  to  work  with  Atlanta  for  more  than  six  (6)  months  from  the  start  of   entered  into  the  first  and  second  apprenticeship  agreements    
a   purported   apprenticeship   agreement   between   them   and   the   company.   2.  The  first  and  second  apprenticeship  agreements  were  defective  as  they  
They   claimed   that   they   were   illegally   dismissed   when   the   apprenticeship   were  executed  in  violation  of  the  law  and  the  rules.  The  agreements  did  not  
agreement  expired.     indicate   the   trade   or   occupation   in   which   the   apprentice   would   be   trained;  
  neither   was   the   apprenticeship   program   approved   by   the   Technical  
In   defense,   Atlanta   and   Chan   argued   that   the   workers   were   not   entitled   to   Education  and  Skills  Development  Authority  (TESDA).    
regularization   and   to   their   money   claims   because   they   were   engaged   as   3.  The  positions  occupied  by  the  respondents—machine  operator,  extruder  
apprentices   under   a   government-­‐approved   apprenticeship   program.   The   operator   and   scaleman—are   usually   necessary   and   desirable   in   the  
company  offered  to  hire  them  as  regular  employees  in  the  event  vacancies   manufacture   of   plastic   building   materials,   the   company’s   main   business.  
for   regular   positions   occur   in   the   section   of   the   plant   where   they   had   Costales,  Almoite,  Sebolino  and  Sagun  were,  therefore,  regular  employees  
trained.   They   also   claimed   that   their   names   did   not   appear   in   the   list   of   whose   dismissals   were   illegal   for   lack   of   a   just   or   authorized   cause   and  
employees  (Master  List)  prior  to  their  engagement  as  apprentices.     notice.    
   
Labor  Arbiter  Medroso  dismissed  the  complaint  with  respect  to  dela  Cruz,   ISSUES:  
Magalang,   Zaño   and   Chiong,   but   found   the   termination   of   service   of   the   1.   W/N   Costales,  Almoite,  Sebolino  and  Sagun  were  employed  by  Atlanta  
remaining   nine   to   be   illegal.6   Consequently,   the   arbiter   awarded   the   before  they  were  engaged  as  apprentices?    
dismissed   workers   backwages,   wage   differentials,   holiday   pay   and   service   2.   W/N  the  second  apprenticeship  agreement  is  invalid?    
incentive  leave  pay  amounting  to  P1,389,044.57  in  the  aggregate.     3.   W/N  the  respondents  were  illegally  dismissed?  
     
Atlanta  appealed  to  the  National  Labor  Relations  Commission  (NLRC).  In  the   HELD:  
meantime,  or  on  October  10,  2006,  Ramos,  Alegria,  Villagomez,  Costales  and   1.   YES.  Based  on  company  operations  at  the  time  material  to  the    

LMJT   10  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

case,  Costales,  Almoite,  Sebolino  and  Sagun  were  already  rendering  service    
to   the   company   as   employees   before   they   were   made   to   undergo   3.   YES  
apprenticeship.   The   company   itself   recognized   the   respondents’   status    
through  relevant  operational  records.     This  reality  is  highlighted  by  the  CA  finding  that  the  respondents  occupied  
  positions  such  as  machine  operator,  scaleman  and  extruder  operator—tasks  
The   Master   List   (of   employees)   that   the   petitioners   heavily   rely   upon   as   that  are  usually  necessary  and  desirable  in  Atlanta’s  usual  business  or  trade  
proof  of  their  position  that  the  respondents  were  not  Atlanta’s  employees,   as  manufacturer  of  plastic  building  materials.  These  tasks  and  their  nature  
at  the  time  they  were  engaged  as  apprentices,  is  unreliable  and  does  not   characterized   the   four   as   regular   employees   under   Article   280   of   the   Labor  
inspire  belief.     Code.   Thus,   when   they   were   dismissed   without   just   or   authorized   cause,  
  without  notice,  and  without  the  opportunity  to  be  heard,  their  dismissal  was  
The   list,   consisting   of   several   pages,   is   hardly   legible.   It   requires   extreme   illegal  under  the  law.  
effort  to  sort  out  the  names  of  the  employees  listed,  as  well  as  the  other    
data  contained  in  the  list.  For  this  reason  alone,  the  list  deserves  little  or  no   CENTURY  CANNING  VS.  CA  
consideration.  As  the  respondents  also  pointed  out,  the  list  itself  contradicts   G.R.  No.  152894.  August  17,  2007
  
a   lot   of   Atlanta’s   claims   and   allegations,   thus:   it   lists   only   the   names   of   CARPIO,  J.:    
inactive  employees;  even  the  names  of  those  the  NLRC  found  to  have  been    
employed  by  Atlanta,  like  Costales  and  Almoite,  and  those  who  even  Atlanta   FACTS:  
claims   attained   regular   status   on   January   11,   2006,55   do   not   appear   in   the   Century   Canning   Corporation   hired   Gloria   C.   Palad   as   “fish   cleaner”   at  
list   when   it   was   supposed   to   account   for   all   employees   “as   of   May   6,   2006.   petitioner’s   tuna   and   sardines   factory.   Palad   signed   an   apprenticeship  
We  note  that  the  list  contains  the  names  of  employees  from  1999  to  2004     agreement  with  petitioner  and  received  an  apprentice  allowance  of  P138.75  
  daily.  The  apprenticeship  program  was  approved  by  TESDA.      
2.   YES.      
  A   performance   evaluation   was   conducted,   where   petitioner   gave   Palad   a  
The  fact  that  Costales,  Almoite,  Sebolino  and  Sagun  were  already  rendering   rating   of   N.I.   or   “needs   improvement”.   Furthermore,   according   to   the  
service  to  the  company  when  they  were  made  to  undergo  apprenticeship   performance   evaluation,   Palad   incurred   numerous   tardiness   and   absences.  
renders   the   apprenticeship   agreements   irrelevant   as   far   as   the   four   are   As  a  consequence,  petitioner  issued  a  termination  notice.    
concerned.      
  Palad  then  filed  a  complaint  for  illegal  dismissal,  under-­‐payment  of  wages,  
Even   if   we   recognize   the   company’s   need   to   train   its   employees   through   and  non-­‐payment  of  pro-­‐rated  13th  month  pay.  The  Labor  Arbiter  dismissed  
apprenticeship,  we  can  only  consider  the  first  apprenticeship  agreement  for   the   complaint   but   ordered   petitioner   to   pay   Palad   her   last   salary   and   her  
the  purpose.  With  the  expiration  of  the  first  agreement  and  the  retention  of   pro-­‐rated  13th  month  pay.  On  appeal,  the  NLRC  affirmed  with  modification  
the   employees,   Atlanta   had,   to   all   intents   and   purposes,   recognized   the   the  LA’s  decision.    
completion   of   their   training   and   their   acquisition   of   a   regular   employee    
status.   To   foist   upon   them   the   second   apprenticeship   agreement   for   a   Palad  filed  a  special  civil  action  for  certiorari  with  the  CA.      
second   skill   which   was   not   even   mentioned   in   the   agreement   itself,   is   a   The  Court  of  Appeals  held  that  the  apprenticeship  agreement  which  Palad  
violation  of  the  Labor  Code’s  implementing  rules60  and  is  an  act  manifestly   signed  was  not  valid  and  binding  because  it  was  executed  more  than  two  
unfair  to  the  employees,  to  say  the  least.     months  before  the  TESDA  approved  petitioner’s  apprenticeship  program.  It  

LMJT   11  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

also   held   that   petitioner   illegally   dismissed   Palad   and   was   improperly   the  Labor  Code,  an  employment  is  deemed  regular  where  the  employee  
apprised  of  the  required  standard  of  performance.     has  been  engaged  to  perform  activities  which  are  usually  necessary  or  
  desirable  in  the  usual  business  or  trade  of  the  employer.    
ISSUES:    
1.   W/N  Palad  is  an  apprentice?   2.   YES  
2.   W/N  Palad  was  illegally  dismissed?    
  Petitioner  failed  to  substantiate  its  claim  that  Palad  was  terminated  for  valid  
HELD:   reasons.   In   fact,   the   NLRC   found   that   petitioner   failed   to   prove   the  
  authenticity  of  the  performance  evaluation  which  petitioner  claims  to  have  
1.   NO.   conducted   on   Palad,   where   Palad   received   a   performance   rating   of   only  
  27.75%.   Petitioner   merely   relies   on   the   performance   evaluation   to   prove  
RA   7796,   which   created   the   TESDA,   has   transferred   the   authority   over   Palad’s  inefficiency.  It  was  likewise  not  shown  that  petitioner  ever  apprised  
apprenticeship  programs  from  the  Bureau  of  Local  Employment  of  the  DOLE   Palad  of  the  performance  standards  set  by  the  company.  When  the  alleged  
to   the   TESDA.   RA   7796   emphasizes   TESDA’s   approval   of   the   apprenticeship   valid  cause  for  the  termination  of  employment  is  not  clearly  proven,  as  in  
program  as  a  pre-­‐requisite  for  the  hiring  of  apprentices.     this  case,  the  law  considers  the  matter  a  case  of  illegal  dismissal.    
   
In  this  case,  the  apprenticeship  agreement  was  entered  into  between  the   BERNARDO  VS.  NLRC  
parties  before  petitioner  filed  its  apprenticeship  program  with  the  TESDA  for   G.R.  No.  122917.  July  12,  1999    
approval.  Petitioner  and  Palad  executed  the  apprenticeship  agreement  on   PANGANIBAN,  J.:    
17  July  1997  wherein  it  was  stated  that  the  training  would  start  on  17  July    
1997   and   would   end   approximately   in   December   1997.   On   25   July   1997,   SEC   5   -­‐   No   disabled   person   shall   be   denied   access   to   opportunities   for   suitable  
petitioner   submitted   for   approval   its   apprenticeship   program,   which   the   employment.  A  qualified  disabled  employee  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  terms  and  
TESDA   subsequently   approved   on   26   September   1997.   Clearly,   the   conditions   of   employment   and   the   same   compensation,   privileges,   benefits,   fringe  
benefits,  incentives  or  allowances  as  a  qualified  able  bodied  person.  (Magna  Carta  
apprenticeship  agreement  was  enforced  even  before  the  TESDA  approved  
for  Disabled  Persons)  
petitioner’s  apprenticeship  program.  Thus,  the  apprenticeship  agreement  
 
is  void  because  it  lacked  prior  approval  from  the  TESDA.    
FACTS:    
 
Complainants   numbering   43,   are   deaf-­‐mutes   who   were   hired   on   various  
The  TESDA’s  approval  of  the  employer’s  apprenticeship  program  is  required  
periods   from   1988   to   1993   by   respondent   Far   East   Bank   and   Trust   Co.   as  
before  the  employer  is  allowed  to  hire  apprentices.  Prior  approval  from  the  
Money  Sorters  and  Counters  through  a  uniformly  worded  agreement  called  
TESDA   is   necessary   to   ensure   that   only   employers   in   the   highly   technical  
“Employment  Contract  for  Handicapped  Workers”.    
industries  may  employ  apprentices  and  only  in  apprentice-­‐able  occupations.    
 
 
Disclaiming  that  complainants  were  regular  employees,  respondent  Far  East  
Since  Palad  is  not  considered  an  apprentice  because  the  apprenticeship  
Bank   and   Trust   Company   maintained   that   complainants   were   hired  
agreement  was  enforced  before  the  TESDA’s  approval  of  petitioner’s  
temporarily  under  a  special  employment  arrangement  or  “pakiusap”  which  
apprenticeship  program,  Palad  is  deemed  a  regular  employee  performing  
resulted  from  overtures  made  by  some  civic  and  political  personalities.    
the  job  of  a  “fish  cleaner.”  Clearly,  the  job  of  a  “fish  cleaner”  is  necessary  in  
 
petitioner’s  business  as  a  tuna  and  sardines  factory.  Under  Article  280  of  

LMJT   12  
 
   LABOR  STANDARDS  CASE  DIGESTS  –  ATTY.  PETER  JOEY  USITA  (2018-­‐2019)    

The  idea  of  hiring  handicapped  workers  was  acceptable  to  them  only  on  a   As  regular  employees,  they  are  entitled  to  security  of  tenure;  that  is,  their  
special  arrangement  basis.  The  task  of  counting  and  sorting  of  bills  which   services   may   be   terminated   only   for   a   just   or   authorized   cause.   Because  
were  being  performed  by  tellers  (tasks  that  are  logical  and  natural  part  of   respondent  failed  to  show  such  cause,  these  twenty-­‐seven  petitioners  are  
tellers'  functions)  have  been   assigned  to  deaf-­‐mutes.  Moreover,  the  Bank   deemed   illegally   dismissed   and   therefore   entitled   to   back   wages   and  
have  no  separate  items  in  its  plantilla  for  sorters  or  counters  even  from  the   reinstatement  without  loss  of  seniority  rights  and  other  privileges.  
beginning,  thus,  the  tellers  themselves  did  the  sorting  and  counting  chores.    
As  a  consequence  of  the  'pakiusap'  by  Arturo  Borjal,  the  tellers  were  relieved   2.   YES  
of  such  tasks  in  favor  of  the  deaf-­‐mutes  without  creating  new  positions  in   The  term  limit  in  the  contract  was  premised  on  the  fact  that  the  petitioners  
the   Bank,   as   there   is   no   position   in   any   bank   in   the   Philippines   which   deals   were   disabled,   and   that   the   bank   had   to   determine   their   fitness   for   the  
with  purely  counting  and  sorting  of  bills  in  banking  operations.     position.  Indeed,  its  validity  is  based  on  Article  80  of  the  Labor  Code.  But  as  
  noted   earlier,   petitioners   proved   themselves   to   be   qualified   disabled  
Complainants  alleged  that  they  were  all  hired  and  later  on  dismissed.  The   persons  who,  under  the  Magna  Carta  for  Disabled  Persons,  are  entitled  to  
labor  arbiter  and,  on  appeal,  the  NLRC  ruled  against  the  petitioners.  The  LA   terms   and   conditions   of   employment   enjoyed   by   qualified   able-­‐bodied  
ruled  that  petitioners  were  not  regular  employees  while  the  NLRC  held  that   individuals;  hence,  Article  80  does  not  apply.    
the   Magna   Carta   for   Disabled   Persons   was   not   applicable,   "considering   the    
prevailing  circumstances/milieu  of  the  case.     The   noble   objectives   of   Magna   Carta   for   Disabled   Persons   are   not   based  
  merely   on   charity   or   accommodation,   but   on   justice   and   the   equal  
ISSUES:   treatment   of   qualified   persons,   disabled   or   not.   In   the   present   case,   the  
1.   W/N  petitioners  were  regular  employees?   handicap  of  petitioners  (deaf-­‐mutes)  is  not  a  hindrance  to  their  work.  The  
2.   W/N  the  provisions  of  the  Magna  Carta  for  the  Disabled  (RA   eloquent   proof   of   this   statement   is   the   repeated   renewal   of   their  
7277),  on  proscription  against  discrimination  against  disabled   employment   contracts.   Why   then   should   they   be   dismissed,   simply  
persons  applicable?   because   they   are   physically   impaired?   The   Court   believes,   that,   after  
  showing   their   fitness   for   the   work   assigned   to   them,   they   should   be  
HELD:   treated  and  granted  the  same  rights  like  any  other  regular  employees.    
1.   YES.    
The   contract   signed   by   petitioners   is   akin   to   a   probationary   employment,    
during  which  the  bank  determined  the  employees'  fitness  for  the  job.  When  
the  bank  renewed  the  contract  after  the  lapse  of  the  six-­‐month  probationary  
period,   the   employees   thereby   became   regular   employees.   No   employer   is  
allowed  to  determine  indefinitely  the  fitness  of  its  employees.  
 
Without   a   doubt,   the   task   of   counting   and   sorting   bills   is   necessary   and  
desirable  to  the  business  of  respondent  bank.  With  the  exception  of  sixteen  
of  them,  petitioners  performed  these  tasks  for  more  than  six  months.  Thus,  
the  twenty-­‐seven  petitioners  should  be  deemed  regular  employees  
 

LMJT   13