ART. XIII, SEC.

3: LABOR
JACINTO, ET AL V. CA – 281 SCRA 657
FACTS:
 Petitioners are public school teachers, incurred unauthorized absences in connection with the mass action. They were
administratively charged with gross misconduct and gross neglect of duty for joining unauthorized mass actions.
 During the investigation, petitioners did not file their answers or controvert the charges against them. As a consequence,
DECS Sec. Cariño, in his decisions found them guilty as charged and imposed the penalty of dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether or notthey are guilty of grave misconduct in participating in mass actions.

RULINGAND MAIN POINT: YES.

Where public school teachers absent themselves without proper authority, from their schools during regular school days, in
order to participate in mass protest, their absence ineluctably results in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of
students of education, for which they are responsible, and they may be penalized not for the exercise of their right to assemble
peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances but for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.

ART. XIII, SEC. 3: LABOR

Telefunken Employees Union v. CA, GR 143013-14, December 18, 2000
FACTS:
 The Company and the Union reached a deadlock(failure) in their negotiations for a new CBA(collective bargaining
agreement). The Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB.
 DOLE-Sec intervened and assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, issued assumption order and thus prohibited any strike
or lockout between the parties.Still, the union conducted strike. The Company then issued letters of termination for cause
to the workers who did not report back to work.DOLE-Sec issued another Order directing the Company to reinstate all
striking workers “except the Union Officers. The strike was later declared illegal by the Sec.

ISSUE:Whether or not defiance to the orders of the Secretary of Labor is a valid ground to terminate the employment of
striking members.

RULING:YES
Defiance to the assumption and return-to-work orders of the Secretary of Labor after he has assumed jurisdiction is a valid
ground for loss of the employment status of any striking union officer or member.The rationale of this prohibition is that once
jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly acquired by the competent authority, that jurisdiction should
not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike.
MAIN POINT: IN BOLD

ART. XIII, SEC. 3: LABOR

LANZADERAS ET AL V. AMETHYST SECURITY, RESIN INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL CORP. (RICC)PHIL. IRON CONSTRUCTION
AND MARINE WORKS, INC.(PICMW)

FACTS:
 Petitioners were the complainants for alleged illegal dismissal against RICC/PICMW and their security services provider,
Amethyst. One of the conditions of the service contracts between Amethyst and RICC/PICMW was for Amethyst to supply
the latter companies with security guards who must be between 25 to 45 years of age.
 Petitioners who were at that time over 45 years of age received Memorandum/Relief Ordersrelieving them from their
existing postings as security guards, were instructed to return to Amethyst for reassignment, and failure to comply would
be considered AWOL. According to Amethyst, they failed to return to work. Petitioners then filed separate complaints for
constructive dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the termination of petitioner’s services by the respondents by virtue of the contract of security services
constitutes constructive dismissal.

RULING: NO
The condition imposed regarding the age requirement is a valid contractual stipulation. It is an inherent right of RICC/PICMW,
as the principal or client, to specify the qualifications of the guards who shall render service pursuant to a service contract.

MAIN POINT: Security of tenure, although provided in the Constitution, does not give an employee an absolute vested right in
a position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change their assignment or transfer them where they will be
most useful.