Pbilippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs.

Drilon

Facts: Beiein petitionei, who is engageu piincipally in the
ieciuitment of Filipino woikeis, male anu female, foi oveiseas
placement, is challenging the Constitutional valiuity of
Bepaitment 0iuei No. of the B0LE which tempoiaiily suspenus
the ueployment of Filipino uomestic anu householu woikeis.
Accoiuing to theii petition, saiu B.0. is uisciiminatoiy anu
unconstitutional foi violating the equal piotection clause, anu is
contiaiy to the constitutional manuate foi piotection to laboi.

Issues:

Whethei oi not the assaileu Bepaitment 0iuei is constitutional.

Whethei oi not it is violative of the constitutional manuate foi
piotection to laboi.

Held: The Supieme Couit iuleu that the petition is without meiit.

With iegaiu to the fiist issue, the SC uphelu the B.0. is a valiu
exeicise of the State's police powei, i.e. the state authoiity to
enact legislation that may inteifeie with the peisonal libeity oi
piopeity in oiuei to piomote the geneial welfaie. Fuitheimoie,
the Couit has founu nothing uisciiminatoiy in this B.0. as the
classification maue by the same iests on substantial uistinctions -
being awaie of the unhappy plight that has befallen the female
laboi foice abioau, especially uomestic seivants. The same,
howevei, cannot be saiu with the Filipino male woikeis abioau.

As to the seconu issue, the B.0. uoes not violate the constitutional
manuate foi upholuing the uignity of laboi. Protection to labor,
as ueclaieu in Sec. Ait. of the constitution, does not
ultimately signify tbe promotion of labor alone. Wbat
concerns tbe constitution more paramountly is tbat sucb an
employment be above all, decent, |ust and bumane. To
continuously allow this unfoitunate flight of the female uomestic
woikeis abioau woulu be to iun contiaiy to the veiy piinciples
that the constitution espouses.


Sosito vs. Aguinaldo Development Corporation

Bue to financial setbacks, the piivate iesponuent in this case
announceu a ietienchment piogiam anu offeieu sepaiation pay
to employees in tbe octive service as of }une , 9, who woulu
tenuei theii iesignations not latei than }une , 9. Aiounu
this time, heiein petitionei was on an inuefinite leave with the
consent of the company. Baving heaiu of this piogiam, he
submitteu his iesignation lettei on }uly 9, 9 to avail himself
of the giatuity benefits piomiseu. Bis iesignation was howevei
not acteu upon anu was nevei given the sepaiation pay he
expecteu, because accoiuing to the iesponuent, he was not
coveieu by the piogiam.

Issues: Whethei oi not the petitionei is entitleu to sepaiation
pay unuei the ietienchment piogiam of the piivate iesponuent.

Held: Isang malaking gahaman lang si Sosito!!!

Cleaily, he was not eligible to the piomiseu giatuity as he was not
octuolly workinq with the company as of the saiu uate. Being on
inuefinite leave fiom the company, the petitionei was alieauy
enjoying the benefits of this piivilege; theie is nothing that shows
that he was tempoiaiily laiu off, oi foiceu to go on leave. Be
voluntaiily sought foi it. In othei woius, he just wants to have the
best of both woilus.

Inueeu, while the constitution is committeu to the policy of social
justice anu piotection of the woiking class, it shoulu not be
supposeu that eveiy laboi uispute will be automatically ueciueu
in favoi of laboi.


SMC Employees Union vs. Bersamira

Facts: SNC enteieu into contiacts foi meichanuising seivices
with Lipeicon anu B'Rite, which aie inuepenuent contiactois. It
was agieeu that the woikeis employeu by the contiactois woulu
not be ueemeu employees oi agents of SNC.

In the CBA that SNC hau with heiein petitionei, it was pioviueu
that "tempoiaiy, piobationaiy, contiactual employees anu
woikeis aie excluueu fiom the baigaining unit anu theiefoie
outsiue the scope of the Agieement". Bespite this piovision, the
0nion auviseu SNC that some Lipeicon anu B'Rite woikeis hau
joineu the union - but to no avail. SNC then fileu foi injunction
befoie the RTC to enjoin the 0nion fiom iepiesenting the
woikeis of Lipeicon. The petitioneis iefuteu this complaint,
claiming that since the contioveisy involveu is a laboi uispute,
the same is beyonu the juiisuiction of iegulai couits. SNC, on the
othei hanu, attests that since theie exists no Ee-Ei ielationship,
theie is no laboi uispute to speak of.

Issues: Whethei oi not the case at bai involves laboi uispute.

Held: A laboi uispute exists!

Regaiuless of the claim of SNC that no Ee-Ei ielationship exists
between itself anu the contiactual woikeis of Lipeicon, a laboi
uispute can neveitheless take place shoulu the contioveisy
concein the teims anu conuitions of employment oi a change oi
aiiangement theieof.

That a laboi uispute exists heiein is eviuent, because what the
0nion seeks is to iegulaiize the status of the employees
contiacteu by Lipeicon, anu in effect be absoibeu into the
woiking unit of SNC. Anu since the case is inuisputably linkeu
with a laboi uispute, juiisuiction belongs to the laboi tiibunals.


Brotberbood Labor Unity Movement {BLUM] of tbe
Pbilippines vs. Zamora

Facts: Petitioneis have been employeu at the SanNig Paiola
ulass Factoiy foi almost seven yeais at the time that they weie
teiminateu, woiking as caigauoies oi pahinantes at the SNC
plant, loauing, piling anu palleting empty bottles to anu fiom the
company tiucks anu waiehouses using company-pioviueu tools
anu paiapheinalia. They woikeu exclusively at the SNC plant,
anu weie nevei assigneu in othei companies oi uepaitments.

Theii woik was neithei iegulai not continuous, uepenuing on the
company's business activity - i.e. theii woik uiu not necessaiily
mean 8 houis, since sometimes they aie necessitateu to woik
even on Sunuays anu holiuays, without oveitime pay noi extia
compensation.

When petitioneis oiganizeu themselves into a union (BL0N) to
aii theii giievances, SNC iefuseu to conceue. Such move on the
foimei's pait biought about the teimination of some of theii
membeis. SNC's iefusal to baigain was baseu on its claim that
they weie not its employees.

Issues: Whethei oi not theie exists an Ei-Ee ielationship
wetween BL0N anu SNC

Held: Consiueiing the length of time that petitioneis have
woikeu with SNC, it is stiongly eviuenceu that they weie
engageu to peifoim activities necessaiy oi uesiiable in the usual
business oi tiaue of SNC anu aie hence, iegulai employees.
Applying the foui ciiteiia of Ei-Ee ielationship in this case, theie
is a cleai inuication that such ielationship exists between them.

Even the seconu uefense of SNC woulu not waiiant - that is the
existence of an allegeu laboi contiactoi. The ieason foi which is
that the allegeu laboi contiactoi hau neithei substantial capital
noi investment to qualify as an inuepenuent contiactoi. The tools
useu by petitioneis aie all supplieu by SNC. It is only manpowei
which the allegeu contiactoi supplies, suggesting the existence of
a laboi-only contiacting scheme which is piohibiteu by law.


Pbilippine Skylanders Inc. vs. NLRC

Facts: The Philippine Skylanueis Employees Assoc. (PSEA), a
local laboi union, affiliateu itself with the Phil. Assoc. of Fiee
Laboi 0nions (PAFL0). PSEA won the ceitification election as the
official union foi the employees of PSI. Its iival union (as usual)
piotesteu the iesults befoie B0LE.

Buiing this peiiou, PSEA uisaffiliateu itself fiom PAFL0; then
subsequently affiliateu with National Congiess of Woikeis
(NCW). As the newly iecognizeu union, PSI enteieu a CBA with
PSEA-NCW - something that agitateu PAFL0. A case was then
fileu against PSI by PAFL0 foi unfaii laboi piactice. In its uefense,
PSI claims that since the issue was an intei-union conflict, the
same is beyonu the juiisuiction of the Laboi Aibitei.

Issue: Whethei oi not the issues conceining intei-union conflicts
aie within the juiisuiction of the Laboi Aibitei.

Held: The issue of uisaffiliation, as an intei-union conflict,
piopeily lies within the juiisuiction of the Buieau of Laboi
Relations (BLR) anu not with the Laboi Aibitei.

Fuitheimoie, PAFL0 is in the fiist instance without peisonality
to file a case against both PSI anu PSEA-NCW, since local unions
has the iight to sepaiate fiom theii mothei feueiation. The
ieason foi which is that local unions uo not owe theii cieation
anu existence to the national feueiation to which they aie
affiliateu. PAFL0 cannot simply ignoie the uemanus of the local
chaptei anu ueciue foi its welfaie.


Ferrer vs. NLRC

Facts: Petitioneis heiein aie iegulai anu peimanent employees
of the 0cciuental Founuiy Coipoiation (0FC) as piece woikeis.
SANABAN was the iecognizeu union in the saiu company. 0n
Nay 989, Feiiei anu companion fileu a complaint with the B0LE
seeking the expulsion fiom the saiu union of its officeis heaueu
by Capitle; such complaint was baseu on the allegeu failuie of the
officeis to attenu to the economic uemanus of the woikeis. This
complaint was latei on followeu by a special election conuucteu
by Feiiei anu companions.

Beaueu by Capitle, the union officials expelleu Feiiei et ol fiom
the union. Subsequently theieaftei, the company also teiminateu
theii employment, which has as its basis the CBA between the
union anu the company- specifically Section
.as a conuition of continueu employment, an
employee must maintain his membeiship in
the union.

anu Section
.failuie to ietain membeiship in goou
stanuing with the union shall be giounu foi
teimination.

Accoiuing to the company, which was uphelu by the laboi
aibitei, the uismissal of petitioneis was an exeicise of legitimate
management pieiogative.

Issue: Whethei oi not the teimination of heiein petitioneis is
valiu baseu on the union's CBA vis--vis theii constitutional
iights.

Held: The teimination was invaliu!

Although it is an establisheu fact that a CBA is the law between
the company anu the union, that compliance theiewith is
manuateu by the expiess policy to give piotection to laboi, anu
that it is not a iestiiction on the iight oi fieeuom of association, it
shoulu howevei be maue ceitain that in the implementation of
the CBA, no iights shoulu be impaiieu oi violateu.

In the case at bai, while it is tiue that the CBA between 0FC anu
the SANABAN pioviueu foi the uismissal of employees who have
not maintaineu theii membeiship in the union, the mannei in
which the uismissal was enfoiceu was a violation of the
petitioneis iight to pioceuuial uue piocess. No heaiing was evei
conuucteu by the SANABAN to give an oppoitunity foi the
petitioneis to explain themselves anu be affoiueu with the
chance to answei the chaiges against them. Being a piopeity
iight, one's piofession cannot just be aibitiaiily taken fiom a
peison without uue piocess.

Fuitheimoie, while teimination of employment is tiauitionally
consiueieu a management pieiogative, it is not an absolute
pieiogative as it is subject to limitations founueu in law.


UST Faculty Union {USTFU] vs. Bitonio, )r.

Facts: Without being foimally conveneu anu minus the legitimate
union officials of the 0STF0, an election was conuucteu foi a new
set of union officeis - an occasion which was cloakeu in the
uisguise of a supposeu geneial faculty assembly. Nost of those
who paiticipateu in the saiu election wheie uisgiuntleu union
membeis who aie alleging numeious anomalies against the
union officials. They aie saying that this impelleu them to elect a
new set of 0STF0 officeis anu that such is a valiu exeicise of theii
iight to self-oiganization.

Issue: Whethei oi not saiu election was within the ambit of theii
iight to self-oiganization.

Held: Whaaaat...!!! 0f couise not!

While self-oiganization is a funuamental iight guaianteeu by law
anu employees aie fiee to foim, join oi assist laboi oiganizations
foi the puipose of collective baigaining oi foi theii mutual aiu
anu piotection, the means they useu in the achievement of the
same invaliuates theii claim to the iight.

Petitionei's fiustiation ovei the peifoimance of the incumbent
union officials, as well as theii feai of a fiauuulent election to be
helu unuei the lattei's supeivision, coulu not justify the methou
they chose to impose theii will on the union; neithei uoes it
justify the uisiegaiu of the union's constitutions anu by-laws.

Let it be noteu (naks) that the CBL is the funuamental law that
goveins the ielationship between anu among the membeis of the
union. Without iespect foi the CBL, a union as a uemociatic
institution uegeneiates into nothing moie than a gioup of
inuiviuuals by mob iule.

Fuitheimoie, it was the veiy act of suspenuing the CBL that
implicitly showeu theii aumission of the invaliuity of the election
they conuucteu. Neithei uiu the iatification by the 0ST
management valiuate the saiu iiiegulaiity.


ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v. ABS-
CBN Broadcasting Corporation

Facts: 0n Becembei 989, the 0nion 0fficeis anu the
company concluueu CBA with the following uisputeu check
off piovision (company agieeu to auvance to the union %
of the sum total of the salaiy incieases anu signing bonuses
gianteu to supeivisois to covei the 0nions inciuental
expenses, attoineys g, anu iepiesentation expenses...)

0n Becembei 9, 99, the 0nion Nembeis fileu with the
Buieau of Laboi Relations a complaint against its officeis anu
the company uue to the illegality of special assessment of
% since the same uiu bot comply with the iequiiements of
the laboi coue (, pai. g,n,o). The Aibitei ueclaieu the
assessment illegal anu the saiu uecison was affiimeu by the
B0LE Secietaiy Laguesma upon appeal. Bowevei, when the
iesponuent file a Notion foi Reconsiueiation, the secietaiy
set asiue its eailiei uecison anu uismisseu the complain of the
0nion Nembeis.

Bence, this petition. Petitioneis claim that the affiimation of
the B0LE Sec of the 0iuei of the Neu Aibitei is final anu
unappealable anu cannot be subject to a motion foi
ieconsiueiation unuei Section 8, Rule vIII of the 0mnibus
Rules Implementing the Laboi Coue.

ISSUE: WoN the affiimation of the B0LE Sec was inueeu final
anu unappealable.

HELD: No. Such iule cannot be inteipieteu to mean that the
uecision of the Secietaiy cannot be ieconsiueieu since the
same is ieviewable by wiit of ceitioiaii unuei Rule . Anu
the lattei cannot be iesoiteu to without exhausting all the
available auministiative iemeuies thiough a Notion foi
ieconsiueiation.

Notes: The Check of was helu to be valiu because the
iequisites weie met (. geneial meeting calleu foi to uiscuss
the assessment; . meetings of the same iecoiuei by the
0nions secietaiy; . Inuiviuual wiitten authoiizations by a
majoiity of the membeis)

*Cbeck-Uff - piocess wheieby the employei, on agieement
with the 0nion, iecognizeu as the piopei baigaining
iepiesentative, oi on piioi authoiization of its employees,
ueuucts union uues oi agency fees fiom the latteis wages
anu iemits them uiiectly to the union.


Palacol v. Ferrer-Calle|a

Facts: Nanila CCBPI Sales Foice 0nion as the CB Agent foi all
iegulai salesmen, helpeis anu ielief helpeis of Coca-Cola
Bottleis, Inc. concluueu a CBA, incluueu in the same is a salaiy
inciease to be given in lump-sum. 0n the same uay, the 0nion
piesiuent submitteu a submitteu a iatifieu authoiization foi
the company to ueuuct . eveiy month fiom the basic pay
anu a % special assessment fiom the lump-sum pay. The
stateu puipose foi the assessment was "put up a coopeiative
anu cieuit union;; puichase vehicles anu othei items neeueu
by the officeis anu geneial membeiship; payment foi the
seivices ienueieu by the union officeis, consultant anu
otheis.

Initially, majoiity of the membeis agieeu to the assessment
uuiing sepaiate local membeiship meetings (iequisite:
shoulu be geneial meetings) helu on vaiious uates. But
majoiity of them subsequently withuiew theii authoiization,
leaving less than half of the numbei of membeis who actually
agieeu as iegaius the assessment (which is below the
iequiiement - majoiity).

The company askeu assistance fiom the Buieau of Laboi
Relations to iesolve the conflicting claims. The membeis
contenu that the assessment was in violation of the Laboi
Coue (Ait , o - ".no attoiney's fees, negotiation fees oi
similai chaiges.will be imposeu upon any inuiviuual
membei."; Ait , b - ".no special assessment..without
inuiviuual wiitten authoiization.)

The meu-aibitei iuleu in favoui of the membeis but the same
was ieveiseu by the uiiectoi. Bence, this petition.

ISSUE: WoN the iequiiements aie met to make the
assessment legal.

HELD: No. No geneial meeting weie helu calleu foi the
puipose of uiscussing the assessment, only local membeiship
meetings helu at uiffeient times anu places. Anu so no wiitten
iesolution was maue by majoiity of the membeis foi that
puipose. The minutes of the local meetings weie not wiitten
by the secietaiy but by the 0nion Biiectoi, which shows no
iecoiu on the votes taken anu the membeis piesent at such
time. Also, theie is no showing that the piesent iegulai union
uues aie not enough to covei the puiposes mentioneu in the
special assessment.

Employees aie piotecteu by law fiom unwaiianteu piactices
that uiminish theii compensation without theii knowleuge
anu consent - State affoiuing full piotection to laboi.


Associated Workers Union-PTCWU v. NLRC

Facts: Bue to a stiike stageu against it, Netio Poit Seivice.
Inc. was ielenteu to the uemanu of AW0 (national chaptei;
baigaining iepiesentative of uockwoikeis in Nanila) to
suspenu of its employees. Such uemanu was baseu fiom
the fact that saiu employees uisaffiliateu anu foimeu a
local chaptei calleu AW0N (Associateu Woikeis 0nion in
Netio poit). This was seen as a sign of uisloyalty by the
inuiviuuals anu so they weie expelleu fiom the AW0 by a
majoiity vote of all its membeis.

The inuiviuuals fileu a complaint against Netio anu the
lattei was uiiecteu to piovisionally ieinstate the foimei
penuing the iesolution of the issues. In the saiu case, NLRC
ueciueu that the inuiviuual iesponuents have the iight to
oiganize themselves into a local chaptei. The foimation of
which was a piotecteu activity anu cannot be helu as
uisloyalty. Theii ieinstatement was oiueieu with backwages
to be paiu soliuaiily by AW0 anu Netio.

ISS0E: WoN the uisaffiliation was is justifieu.

BELB: No. While it is tiue that AW0N as a local union, being
an entity sepaiate anu uistinct fiom AW0, is fiee to seive the
inteiest of all it membeis anu enjoys the fieeuom to
uisaffiliate, such iight may be exeicises only wben worronteJ
by circumstonces. The geneial iule is that uisaffiliation may
only be effecteu uays immeuiately pieceuing the
expiiation of the CBA. Recoius uoes not show that inuiviuual
iesponuents uisaffiliateu uuiing the fieeuom peiiou.
Bowevei, it is shown by the iecoius that only membeis
uisaffiliateu, which is not even half of the majoiity of the AW0
employees in Netio (,). The iequiiement is that majoiity
of the membeis shoulu uisaffiliate anu that theie shoulu be a
substantial shift in theii allegiance foi the same to be
justifieu.



Naiaguinot v. NLRC

FACTS:

Petitionei maintains that he was employeu by iesponuents as
pait of the filming ciew. Be was latei piomoteu as an electiician.
Petitioneis' tasks containeu of loauing movie equipment in the
shoothing aiea. Petitioneis sought the assistance of theii
supeivisoi, Cesaiio, to facilitate theii iequest that iesponuents
aujust theii salaiy in accoiuance with the minimum wage law.
Nis. Cesaiio infoimeu petitioneis that uel Rosaiio woulu agiee to
inciease theii salaiy only if they signeu a blank employment
contiact. As petitionei iefuseu to sign, iesponuents foiceu Eneio
(the othei petitionei who woikeu as a ciew membei) to go on
leave. Bowevei, when he iepoiteu to woik, iesponuent iefuseu
to take him back. Naiaguinot was uioppeu fiom the company
payioll but when he ietuineu, he was again askeu to sign a blank
employment contiact, anu when he still iefuseu, iesponuent's
teiminateu his seivices. Petitioneis thus sueu foi illegal
uismissal.

Piivate iesponuents asseit that they contiact peisons calleu
piouuceis to piouuce oi make movies foi piivate iesponuents
anu contenu that petitioneis aie pioject employees of the
associate piouuceis, who act as inuepenuent contiactois. Thus,
theie is no ER-EE ielationship.
Bowevei, petitioneis citeu that theii peifoimance of activities is
necessaiy in the usual tiaue oi business of
iesponuents anu theii woik in continuous.

ISS0E: WN ER-EE ielationship exists

BELB:Ye s.
With iegaius to vIvA's contention that it uoes not make movies
but meiely uistiibutes motion pictuies,
theie is no sufficient pioof to piove this contention.

In iespect to iesponuents' allegation that petitioneis aie pioject
employees, it is a settleu iule that the contiacting out of laboi is
alloweu only in case of job contiacting. Bowevei, assuming that
the associate piouuceis aie job contactois, they must then be
engageu in the business of making motion pictuies. Associate
piouuceis must have tools necessaiy to make motion pictuies.
Bowevei, the associate piouuceis in this case have none of these.
The movie-making equipment aie supplieu to the piouuceis anu
owneu by vIvA. Thus, it is cleai that the associate piouucei
meiely leases the equipment fiom vIvA.

In auuition, the associate piouuceis of vIvA cannot be consiueieu
laboi-only contiactois as they uiu not supply, ieciuit noi hiie the
woikeis. It was Cesaiio, the Shooting Supeivisoi of vIvA, who
ieciuiteu ciew membeis. Thus, the ielationship between vIvA
anu its piouuceis oi associate piouuceis seems to be that of
agency.

With iegaius to the issue of illegal uismissal, petitioneis asseit
that they weie iegulai employees who weie illegally uismisseu.
Petitioneis in this case hau alieauy attaineu the status of iegulai
employees in view of vIvA's conuuct. Thus, petitioneis aie
entitleu to back wages.
A pioject employee oi a membei of a woik pool may acquiie the
status of a iegulai employee when:
a. theie is a continuous iehiiing of pioject employees even aftei a
cessation of pioject
b. the tasks peifoimeu by the allegeu pioject employee aie vital
anu necessaiy to the business of
employei
The tasks of petitioneis in loauing movie equipment anu
ietuining it to vIvA's waiehouse anu fixing the
lighting system weie vital, necessaiy anu inuispensable to the
usual business oi tiaue of the employei.
Wheiefoie, petition is gianteu.













































PART v


WISE AND CU., INC. v. WISE & CU., INC. EMPLUYEES UNIUN-
NATU
& Bonoiable Bienveniuo u. Laguesma
uR No. 8
FACTS: 0n Apiil ,98, the management issueu a memoianuum
ciiculai intiouucing a proflt xhurlng xcheme foi its manageis
anu supeivisois. The same was to take effect on Naich , 988.
0n }uly ,98 the iesponuent union wiote petitionei thiough its
piesiuent asking foi paiticipation in this scheme but was uenieu
by petitionei on the giounu that it hau to auheie stiictly to the
CBA.

Buiing this time, negotiation by the paities of the CBA was
alieauy taking even though the fieeuom peiiou has not yet
aiiiveu ( uays befoie Apiil , 988). It was also uuiing this
time that the management infoimeu the union that the
employees coveieu by the CBA aie being consiueieu to be
incluueu in the afoiementioneu scheme staiting 98, pioviueu
that the ongoing negotiations weie concluueu piioi to Becembei
98. The pioblem is, negotiations ieacheu a ueaulock on the
issue of the scope of the baigaining unit. No settlement was
ieacheu even though conciliation effoits weie uone.

0n Naich , 988, petitionei uistiibuteu the piofit shaiing
benefit not only to manageis anu supeivisois but also to all othei
iank anu file employees not coveieu by the CBA. This causeu the
iesponuent union to file a notice of stiike alleging that petitionei
was guilty of unfaii laboi piactice because the union membeis
weie uisciiminateu against in the giant of the piofit shaiing
benefits. Aftei a seiies of conciliation confeiences, the paities
agieeu to settle the uispute thiough voluntaiy aibitiation. 0n
Naich ,989, the voluntaiy aibitiatoi issueu an awaiu
oiueiing petitionei to likewise extenu the benefits of the 98
piofit shaiing scheme to the membeis of iesponuent union.
Bence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whethei the giant by management of piofit shaiing
benefits to its non-union membei employees is uisciiminatoiy
against its woikeis who aie union membeis.

HELD: No. Theie can be no uisciimination committeu by
petitionei theieby as the situation of the union employees aie
uiffeient anu uistinct fiom the non-union employees. Theie can
be no uisciimination wheie the employees conceineu aie not
similaily situateu.
The union membeis ueiive theii benefits fiom the teims anu
conuitions of the CBA contiact which constitute the law between
the contiacting paities.

Both the employei anu the union
membeis aie bounu by such agieement. 0nuei the CBA between
the paities, the baigaining unit coveieu by the CBA consists of
all iegulai oi peimanent employees, below the iank of assistant
supeivisoi. Also excluueu fiom the teim aie all iegulai iank anu
file. These employees uo not ueiive benefits fiom the CBA. It is
the pieiogative of management to iegulate, accoiuing to its
uiscietion anu juugment, all aspects of employment. Such
management pieiogative may be availeu of without feai of any
liability so long as it is exeiciseu in goou faith foi the
auvancement of the employeis inteiest anu not foi the puipose
of uefeating oi ciicumventing the iights of employees unuei
special laws oi valiu agieement anu aie not exeiciseu in a
malicious, haish, oppiessive, vinuictive oi wanton mannei oi out
of malice oi spite.








DABUET vs. RUCHE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Packs:
0n Naich 9, heiein inuiviuual petitioneis who weie officeis
of the Roche Piouucts Laboi 0nion, the exclusive baigaining
agent in the company, wiote the iesponuent company expiessing
the giievances of the union anu seeking a foimal confeience with
management iegaiuing the pievious uismissal of the unions
piesiuent anu vice-piesiuent. A meeting was helu, wheiein
insteau of uiscussing the pioblems affecting the laboi union anu
management, Ni. Eiic Nentha, the companys geneial managei,
allegeuly beiateu the petitioneis foi wiiting saiu lettei anu calleu
the lettei anu the peison who piepaieu it (the union's lawyei) as
stupiu.
A case foi giave slanuei was fileu against Ni. Nentha, which in
tuin biought about the suspension of the union officeis involveu
theiein. Subsequently, the iesponuent company fileu with the
NLRC a petition foi cleaiance to teiminate theii employment. The
petitioneis fileu an opposition theieto anu, at the same time, fileu
chaiges of unfaii laboi piactice, union busting, anu haiassment
against the company. Aftei uue pioceeuings, the compulsoiy
aibitiatoi founu that the petitioneis uismissal was without
justifiable cause, but that theie was no unfaii laboi piactice
committeu anu uiiecteu that petitioneis be paiu sepaiation pay.
Petitioneis fileu a motion foi ieconsiueiation anuoi appeal to
the NLRC which agieeu with the finuings of the aibitiatoi that
the petitioneis uismissal was without just anu valiu cause.
Bowevei, it uisagieeu with the aibitiatoi on the ielief gianteu.
The NLRC oiueieu the ieinstatement of the petitioneis with two-
month salaiy as back wages. 0n appeal, the Secietaiy of Laboi
oiueieu only the payment of seveiance to the petitioneis.
The petitioneis appealeu to the 0ffice of the Piesiuent, which
ienueieu a uecision finuing the iesponuents guilty of unfaii laboi
piactice anu uiiecting the ieinstatement of the petitioneis with
back wages fiom the time of theii suspension until actually
ieinstateu.

Tissues:
Whethei oi not the iesponuent company, in teiminating the
employment of the petitioneis without just anu lawful cause,
committeu an unfaii laboi piactice.

Help:
Tamaaa!!!
When the union, thiough its lawyei, wiote the saiu lettei asking
foi a ienegotiation of theii collective baigaining agieement, they
weie piotecteu by the statutoiy iight of engaging in conceiteu
activities in the exeicise of theii iight to self-oiganization foi the
puipose of mutual aiu anu piotection. Inteifeience of which
constitutes unfaii laboi piactice. This is a fact that even the
management uoes not ueny. This iecognition, in tuin, shoulu
extenu to petitioneis execution of an affiuavit in suppoit of the
chaige of slanuei against piivate iesponuent, Eiic Nentha, foi
calling the unions lawyei, who piepaieu the lettei, anu the
contents theieof as stupiu.
Bieach of tiust anu confiuence, the giounus allegeu foi heiein
petitioneis uismissal, must not be inuisciiminately useu as a
shielu to uismiss an employee aibitiaiily. It was fuitheimoie
helu that iesponuent companys act in uismissing the petitioneis,
who then constituteu the iemaining anu entiie officialuom of the
Roche Piouucts Laboi 0nion, aftei the unions piesiuent anu
vice-piesiuent hau been eailiei uismiss anu when the collective
baigaining agieement in the company was about to be
ienegotiateu, was an unfaii laboi piactice unuei Sec. (a) () of
the Inuustiial Peace Act. Theii uismissal, unuei the
ciicumstances, amounteu to inteifeience with, anu iestiaint oi
coeicion of, the petitioneis in the exeicise of theii iight to engage
in conceiteu activities foi theii mutual aiu anu piotection
As the iesponuent company was guilty of unfaii laboi piactice,
ieinstatement of the uismisseu employees shoulu follow as a
mattei of iight. It is an establisheu iule that an employei who
commits an unfaii laboi piactice may be iequiieu to ieinstate,
with full back wages, the woikeis affecteu by such act, the
amount not to exceeu back wages foi thiee () yeais.
The iesponuents claim howevei, that the Supieme Couit has no
juiisuiction to take cognizance of the instant petition. They
contenu that puisuant to Ait. , (shoulu be Ait. ) of the
Laboi Coue. the 0ffice of the Piesiuent is the final appellate
authoiity. The SC counteieu saiu aigument by stating that
although such contention is cleai in the Laboi Coue, this uoes not
mean, howevei, that the powei 0f juuicial ieview uoes not extenu
to uecisions of the 0ffice of the Piesiuent. It is geneially
unueistoou that as to auministiative agencies exeicising quasi-
juuicial oi legislative powei theie is an unueilying powei in the
couits to sciutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law
anu juiisuiction even though no iight of ieview is given by
statute. Fuitheimoie, juuicial ieview woulu always piospei in
case of lack of juiisuiction, giave abuse of uiscietion, eiioi of law,
fiauu oi collusion.


MANILA ELECTRIC CUMPANY v. Bon. Secietaiy 0f Laboi
Leonaiuo QUISUMBINC & Neialco Employees anu Woikeis
Association
uR No. 98

FACTS: This is a Resolution on the case ueciueu by the SC on
}anuaiy , 999. In that uecision, the paities weie uiiecteu to
execute a CBA wheiein the unaffecteu poitions of the Secietaiy of
Labois oiueis aie to be incoipoiateu. The ietiiement funu issue
is iemanueu to the Secietaiy of Laboi foi ieception of eviuence
anu ueteimination of the legal peisonality of the NERALC0
ietiiement funu.

Bissatisfieu with the Becision, some allegeu membeis of piivate
iesponuent union (0nion foi bievity) fileu a motion foi
inteivention anu a motion foi ieconsiueiation of the saiu
Becision. The issues iaiseu in the motions foi ieconsiueiation
hau alieauy been passeu upon by the Couit in the }anuaiy ,
999 uecision. No new aiguments weie piesenteu foi
consiueiation of the Couit.

Nonetheless, ceitain matteis weie consiueieu: Wage,
ietioactivity of the aibitial awaius. Theie was also a shoit
uiscussion on why consultation with the Secietaiy of Laboi as
iegaius to contructlng out is no longei neeueu. (Although the
focus of the case was on the fiist two, I think the topic ielateu to
the concept of unfaii laboi piactice is the last one. Anu so I woulu
stick to that. Reau at youi own iisk.)

ISSUE: W0N the iequiiement of consultation (foi the employeis)
imposeu by the Secietaiy of Laboi in cases of contiacting out foi
six () months oi moie is necessaiy so as to avoiu unfaii laboi
piactice

HELD: No. Biiing of woikeis is within the employeis inheient
fieeuom to iegulate anu is a valiu exeicise of its management
pieiogative subject only to special laws anu agieements on the
mattei anu the faii stanuaius of justice. The management cannot
be uenieu the faculty of piomoting efficiency anu attaining
economy by a stuuy of what units aie essential foi its opeiation.
It has the ultimate ueteimination of whethei seivices shoulu be
peifoimeu by its peisonnel oi contiacteu to outsiue agencies.
While theie shoulu be mutual consultation, eventually uefeience
is to be paiu to what management ueciues. Contiacting out of
seivices is an exeicise of business juugment oi management
pieiogative. Absent pioof that management acteu in a malicious
oi aibitiaiy mannei, the Couit will not inteifeie with the exeicise
of juugment by an employei. The law alieauy sufficiently
iegulates this mattei. }uiispiuuence also pioviues auequate
limitations, such that the employei must be motivateu by goou
faith anu the contiacting out shoulu not be iesoiteu to
ciicumvent the law oi must not have been the iesult of malicious
oi aibitiaiy actions. These aie matteis that may be categoiically
ueteimineu only when an actual suit on the mattei aiises.

SHELL UIL WURKERS UNIUN vs. SHELL CUMPANY UF THE
PHILIPPINES, LTD.

Resolution:
This is a motion foi ieconsiueiation on a uecision ienueieu by
the SC iegaiuing the valiuity of the stiike conuucteu by the Shell
0il Woikeis' 0nion. In the fiist case, the Couit has unanimously
uphelu saiu stiike, which is a ieveisal of the uecision of the Couit
of Inuustiial Relations; anu aftei a caieful stuuy of the extensive
motion foi ieconsiueiation, the same Couit, is once again
unanimous in sustaining the valiuity of the stiike.
Accoiuing to }ustice Baiieuo that it is always a wholesome
attituue in cases of this natuie to give but seconuaiy impoitance
to stiict technicalities, whethei of substantive oi iemeuial law,
anu to constantly beai in minu the human values involveu which
aie beyonu pecuniaiy estimation. As a geneial iule, labois most
potent anu effective weapon is the stiike, anu it is but natuial
that when things appeai to be uimming on the negotiation tables,
laboi shoulu almost instinctively take a stiiking postuie. In othei
woius, the ueteimination of the legality oi illegality of a stiike,
paiticulaily in this enlighteneu eia of piogiessive thinking on
laboi-management ielations is something that cannot be
achieveu by meie stiaight-jacketeu legalistic aigumentation anu
iationalization; the piocess is bioauei anu ueepei than that, foi
to uo justice in ueciuing such an issue, it is impeiative that
utmost consiueiation shoulu be given to the paiticulai
ciicumstances of each case, with a view to having the most
compiehensive unueistanuing of the motivations of the paities,
in the light of human neeus, on the pait of laboi, anu in the
peispective of the oiueily anu economical conuuct of business
anu inuustiy, on the pait of management.
In othei woius, the Couit is in a way loosening up its
iequiiements when it comes to staging a stiike. It is not even
iequiieu that theie be in fact an unfaii laboi piactice committeu
by the employei. It suffices, if such a belief in goou faith is
enteitaineu by laboi, as the inuucing factoi foi staging a stiike.
Besiues, it is within the paiameteis of law that conceiteu
activities of cessation of woik be uone in oiuei that a unions
economic uemanus may be gianteu oi that an employei cease
anu uesist fiom an unfaii laboi piactice. Theie is also no meiit in
the iesponuent's claim that the uecision in this case woulu justify
violence anu thus negate the iule of law. Inueeu, theie is a
uisappioval of the utilization of foice to attain such an objective.
Bence, caie is to be taken, howevei, especially wheie an unfaii
laboi piactice is involveu, to avoiu stamping it with illegality just
because it is tainteu by such acts. To avoiu ienueiing illusoiy the
iecognition of the iight to stiike, iesponsibility in such a case
shoulu be inuiviuual anu not collective.
Bowevei, the Couit maue some mouification in theii foimei
uecision with iegaiu to the ieinstatement of some of the
employees; in paiticulai, those who ieally exeiteu unuue anu
unnecessaiy violence in the saiu stiike. An example is Nestoi
Samson who, baseu upon eviuences, uiu beat uiivei Aisenio Alejo
with such foice as to cause him to fall uown with his eyes
popping out. As foi }ose Rey anu Romeo Rosales, they weie
among those who attackeu Naicos Piieto, the Companys Iloilo
Installation Nanagei, iesulting in the latteis hospitalization foi
thiity-two uays. The violence exeiteu by Sesinanuo Romeio anu
Antonio Labiauoi, by uesign anu in conceit, upon the two
helpless victims, Aituio Nallaii, the loiiy uiivei, anu his helpei,
Avelino Ruiz. Saiu employees weie hence ueemeu teiminateu.



Complex Electronics Employees Association v. NLRC, et.al.
uR No.

FACTS: Complex Electionics Coipoiation (Complex), which was
engageu in the manufactuie of electionic piouucts, was a
subcontiactoi of electionic piouucts wheie its customeis gave
theii job oiueis, sent theii own mateiials anu consigneu theii
equipment to it. The customeis weie foieign-baseu companies
with uiffeient piouuct lines anu specifications iequiiing the
employment of woikeis with specific skills foi each piouuct line.
The iank anu file woikeis of Complex weie oiganizeu into a
union known as the Complex Electionics Employees Association
(0nion).
0n Naich , 99, Complex ieceiveu a facsimile message fiom
Lite-0n Philippines Electionics Co., iequiiing it to lowei its piice
by %. Consequently, Complex infoimeu the Lite-0n peisonnel
in a meeting that such iequest was not feasible as they weie
alieauy incuiiing losses at the piesent piices of theii piouucts.
Anu so, Complex iegietfully infoimeu the employees that it was
left with no alteinative but to close uown the opeiations of the
Lite-0n Line. Complex, howevei, piomiseu that it will give the
employees to be ietiencheu a ietienchment pay as pioviueu foi
by law i.e. half a month foi eveiy yeai of seivice in accoiuance
with Aiticle 8 of the Laboi Coue. The 0nion, on the othei hanu,
pusheu foi a ietienchment pay equivalent to month salaiy foi
eveiy yeai of seivice, which Complex iefuseu.
0n Naich , 99, the 0nion fileu a notice of stiike with the
National Conciliation anu Neuiation Boaiu. In the evening of
Apiil , 99, the machineiy, equipment anu mateiials being
useu foi piouuction at Complex weie pulleu-out fiom the
company piemises anu tiansfeiieu to the piemises of Ionics
Ciicuit, Inc. (Ionics) at Cabuyao, Laguna. The following uay, a
total closuie of company opeiation was effecteu at Complex.
A complaint was fileu with the Laboi Aibitiation Bianch of the
NLRC foi unfaii laboi piactice. The 0nion allegeu that the pull-
out of the machineiy, which iesulteu to the suuuen closuie of the
company was in violation of Section and 8, Rule XIII, Book V
of the Laboi Coue of the Philippines anu the existing CBA.
Complex aveiieu that since the time the 0nion fileu its notice of
stiike, theie was a significant uecline in the quantity anu quality
of the piouucts piouuceu by the employees. The ueliveiy
scheuules weie not met piompting the customeis to louge
complaints against them. Feaiful that the machineiy, equipment
anu mateiials woulu be ienueieu inopeiative anu unpiouuctive
uue to the impenuing stiike of the woikeis, the customeis
oiueieu theii pull-out anu tiansfei to Ionics. Thus, Complex was
compelleu to cease opeiations.
0n Apiil , 99, the Laboi Aibitei ienueieu a uecision
oiueiing the ieinstatement of the employees anu the payment of
backwages. Anu if ieinstatement is no longei possible, Complex
shall be liable foi the payment of sepaiation pay to be computeu
at the iate of one () month pay foi eveiy yeai of seivice, a
fiaction of at least six () months to be consiueieu as one whole
yeai. Complex appealeu befoie NLRC. It uecision of the Laboi
Aibitei was set asiue. 0nly the payment of back wages was
oiueieu. Both paities appealeu anu the cases weie consoliuateu.

ISSUE: WUN tbe closuie of Complexs opeiation, as it was uone
abiuptly as theie was no compliance with the -uay piioi notice
iequiiement, constitutes unfaii laboi piactice.

HELD:
NU. Tbe argument of tbe Union tbat tbe pull out of tbe
equipment was due to Union activities, giving rise to illegal
lockout and dismissal - unfair labor practice - is untenable.
Theie was a complete cessation of the business opeiations at
Complex not because of the laboi uispute. It shoulu be iecalleu
that, befoie the laboi uispute, Complex hau alieauy infoimeu the
employees that they woulu be closing the Lite-0n Line. The
employees, howevei, uemanueu foi a sepaiation pay equivalent
to one () month salaiy foi eveiy yeai of seivice which Complex
iefuseu to give. When Complex fileu a notice of closuie of its Lite-
0n Line, the employees fileu a notice of stiike which gieatly
alaimeu the customeis of Complex anu this leu to the pull-out of
theii equipment, machineiy anu mateiials fiom Complex. Thus,
without the much neeueu equipment, Complex was unable to
continue its business. It was left with no othei choice except to
shut uown the entiie business. The closuie, theiefoie, was not
motivateu by the union activities of the employees, but iathei by
necessity since it can no longei engage in piouuction without the
much neeueu mateiials, equipment anu machineiy.

This Complexs action, stanuing alone, will not iesult in illegal
closuie that woulu cause the illegal uismissal of the complainant
woikeis. The ueteimination to cease opeiation is a pieiogative of
management that is usually not inteifeieu with by the State as no
employei can be iequiieu to continue opeiating at a loss simply
to maintain the woikeis in employment. That woulu be taking of
piopeity without uue piocess of law which the employei has the
iight to iesist.

*ote: The SC affiimeu the uecision of the NLRC. Ibig sabihin
pinagbayau paiin ng sepaiation pay ang Complex uahil sa hinui
pagsunou sa -uay notice befoie closuie. Anu puipose nun is to
ueteimine if the closuie was being uone in goou faith - kasi nga
at stake ang livelihoou ng maiaming manggagawa.


CAINTA CATHULIC SCHUUL vs. CAINTA CATHULIC SCHUUL
EMPLUYEES UNIUN {CCSEU]

Packs:
0n Naich 98, a Collective Baigaining Agieement (CBA) was
enteieu into between heiein petitionei anu iesponuent effective
fiom }anuaiy , 98 up to Nay , 989. Soon theieaftei, Nsgi.
Naiiano Balbago (Balbago) was appointeu School Biiectoi in
Apiil 98. Fiom this time, the 0nion became inactive. It was
only in Septembei 99 that the 0nion helu an election of
officeis. 0n 0ctobei 99, the School ietiieu two of the union
officeis, who aie allegeuly the most vocal, uynamic anu
influential of all union officeis anu weie a new anu uiffeient
bieeu of union leaueis - asseitive, militant anu inuepenuent.
They hau alieauy ienueieu moie than twenty () yeais of
continuous seivice, anu puisuant to Section , Aiticle X of the
CBA, they may alieauy be ietiieu:
n employee moy be retireJ, eitber upon
opplicotion by tbe employee bimself or by tbe
Jecision of tbe Birector of tbe Scbool, upon
reocbinq tbe oqe of sixty {6) or ofter bovinq
renJereJ ot leost twenty {) yeors of service to
tbe Scbool tbe lost tbree {) yeors of wbicb must be
continuous.

Thiee () uays latei, the 0nion fileu a notice of stiike with the
National Conciliation anu Neuiation Boaiu anu a month latei,
stiuck anu picketeu the School's entiances - claiming that the
ietiiement of the two union officeis is a meie subteifuge to bust
the union. Puisuant to an 0iuei fiom the Secietaiy of Laboi
ceitifying a laboi uispute, oiueieu all stiiking teacheis anu
employees to ietuin to woik within houis fiom ieceipt of the
0iuei anu that the Auministiation to accept saiu ietuining
employees. Consequently, the School fileu a petition uiiectly with
the NLRC to ueclaie the stiike illegal. The 0nion, on the othei
hanu, fileu a complaint foi unfaii laboi piactice befoie the NLRC.
The NLRC ienueieu a Resolution favoiing the School anu fuithei
iuleu that the ietiiement of Llagas anu }aviei is legal as the
School was meiely exeicising an option given to it unuei the CBA.
The Couit of Appeals, on the othei hanu, ienueieu a uecision
giving uue couise anu gianting the petition to annul anu set asiue
Resolutions of the NLRC. In ieveising the uecision of the NLRC,
the Couit of Appeals constiueu the ietiiement of Llagas anu
}aviei as an act amounting to unfaii laboi piactice when vieweu
against the backuiop of the ielevant ciicumstances obtaining in
the case. Bence this petition foi certiorori.
Tissues:
()Whethei oi not the stipulation in the Collective Baigaining
Agieement (CBA) that allows management to ietiie an employee
in its employ foi a pieueteimineu lengthy peiiou but who has not
yet ieacheu the minimum compulsoiy ietiiement age is valiu.

()Whethei oi not it is within management pieiogative to ietiie
an employee puisuant to the above-mentioneu stipulation

()Whethei oi not the stiike is legal

Help:
() valiu uaw.!!!
Puisuant to the existing CBA,

the School has the option to ietiie

an employee upon ieaching the age limit of sixty () - puisuant
to Ait. 8 of the Laboi Coue - oi aftei having ienueieu at least
twenty () yeais of seivice to the School, the last thiee () yeais
of which must be continuous. Retiiement is a uiffeient specie of
teimination of employment fiom uismissal foi just oi authoiizeu
causes unuei Aiticles 8 anu 8 of the Laboi Coue. While in all
thiee cases, the employee to be teiminateu may be unwilling to
pait fiom seivice, theie aie eminently highei stanuaius to be met
by the employei valiuly exeicising the pieiogative to uismiss foi
just oi authoiizeu causes. In those two instances, it is
inuispensable that the employei establish the existence of just oi
authoiizeu causes foi uismissal as spelleu out in the Laboi Coue.
Retiiement, on the othei hanu, is the iesult of a bilateial act of
the paities, a voluntaiy agieement between the employei anu the
employee wheieby the lattei aftei ieaching a ceitain age agiees
anuoi consents to sevei his employment with the foimei. Anu
accoiuing to the SC, the valiuity of saiu stipulations is suppoiteu
by }uiispiuuence.

In ontronco ortb Fxpress, lnc. v. , inteipieting Aiticle 8,
the Couit iuleu that the Laboi Coue peimitteu employeis anu
employees to fix the applicable ietiiement age at below yeais
of age. Noieovei, the Couit also helu that theie was no illegal
uismissal since it was the CBA itself that incoipoiateu the
agieement ieacheu between the employei anu the baigaining
agent with iespect to the teims anu conuitions of employment;
hence, when the piivate iesponuent iatifieu the CBA with his
union, he concuiiently agieeu to confoim to anu abiue by its
piovisions. The same uecision was ieacheu in roqressive
Bevelopment orporotion v. anu bilippine irlines, lnc. v.
irline ilots ssociotion of tbe bils.

It shoulu not be taken to mean that ietiiement piovisions agieeu
upon in the CBA aie absolutely beyonu the ambit of juuicial
ieview anu nullification. If the ietiiement piovisions in the CBA
iun contiaiy to law, public moials, oi public policy, such
piovisions may veiy well be voiueu. Yet the CBA in the case at bai
contains no such infiimities which must be stiicken uown. Come
to think of it, twenty yeais is a moie than iueal length of seivice
an employee can ienuei to one employei; anu it's actually moie
beneficial, especially when one is still at an eaily age uuiing these
times, because employees unuei saiu piogiam woulu still ieceive
benefits.
() The next question to be uealt with heie is whethei
management may be piecluueu fiom ietiiing an employee whom
it is entitleu to ietiie upon a ueteimination that the tiue cause foi
compulsoiy ietiiement is the employee's union activities. The
Couit answeieu in the affiimative.
Theie is peihaps a gieatei impeiative to iecognize the
management pieiogative on ietiiement than the pieiogative to
uismiss employees foi just oi authoiizeu causes. Foi one, theie is
a gieatei subjectivity, not to mention factual uispute, attacheu to
the concepts of just oi authoiizeu cause than ietiiement which
noimally contemplates meiely the attainment of a ceitain age oi
a ceitain numbei of yeais in the seivice. , the exeicise by
management of its ietiiement pieiogative is less susceptible to
uubitability as to the question whethei an employee coulu be
valiuly ietiieu. The only factual mattei to consiuei then is
whethei the employee conceineu hau attaineu the iequisite age
oi numbei of yeais in seivice puisuant to the CBA oi
employment agieement, oi if none, puisuant to Aiticle 8 of the
Laboi Coue.
() 0nfoitunately, aftei all has been saiu anu uone, the Couit
iuleu that the stiike was invaliu. The basis of which is that both
ietiiees weie not eligible to be membeis of the 0nion, much less
officeis - Llagas was a manageiial employee while }aviei was a
supeivisoiy employee. Bence, both aie inutile to iepiesent the
0nion. Anu because of this, all the employees who have lost theii
employment uue to the saiu stiike shall not be entitleu to any
back wages uue piecisely to the illegality of the stiike.








TANDUAY DISTILLERY LABUR UNIUN vs. NLRC
uR No.

FACTS:
Tanuuay Bistilleiy, Inc. (TBI) anu Tanuuay Bistilleiy Laboi 0nion
(TBL0) enteieu into a CBA which containeu a "union secuiity
clause," which pioviueu: "All woikeis who aie oi may uuiing the
effectivity of this Contiact, become membeis of the 0nion in
accoiuance with its Constitution anu By-Laws shall, as a
conuition of theii continueu employment, maintain membeiship
in goou stanuing in the 0nion foi the uuiation of the agieement."
While the CBA was still in effect, a numbei of the TBL0, joineu
anothei union, the Kaisahan Ng Nanggagawang Pilipino
(KANPIL) anu oiganizeu its local chaptei in TBI. The TBL0
iequiieu those who uisaffiliateu to explain why they shoulu not
be punisheu foi "uisloyalty." TBL0 cieateu a committee to
investigate its eiiing membeis. The committee iecommenueu
that the uisaffiliating membeis be expelleu anu that they shoulu
be teiminateu fiom seivice in puisuant to the union secuiity
clause. Acting on saiu iequest, the company teiminateu the
employment of the uisaffiliating union membeis.
Issue:
Whethei the uismissal of the uisaffiliating membeis puisuant to a
secuiity clause constitutes 0LP
Held:
N0. The piivate iesponuents cannot escape the effects of the
secuiity clause of theii own applicable CBA. 0nion Secuiity
Clauses in CBA, if fieely anu voluntaiily enteieu into, aie valiu
anu binuing. Thus, the uismissal of an employee by the company
puisuant to a laboi union's uemanu in accoiuance with a union
secuiity agieement uoes not constitute 0LP.
The iesponuent employei uiu nothing but to put in foice theii
agieement when it sepaiateu the heiein complainants upon the
iecommenuation of saiu union. Such a stipulation is not only
necessaiy to maintain loyalty anu pieseive the integiity of the
union but is alloweu by the Nagna Chaita of Laboi when it
pioviueu that while it is iecognizeu that an employee shall have
the iight to self- oiganization, it is at the same time postulateu
that such iight shall not injuie the iight of the laboi oiganization
to piesciibe its own iules with iespect to the acquisition oi
ietention of membeiship theiein
In villai v. Inciong, we helu that petitioneis, although entitleu to
uisaffiliation fiom theii union anu to foim a new oiganization of
theii own must howevei, suffei the consequences of theii
sepaiation fiom the union unuei the secuiity clause of the CBA.

Mabeza vs NLRC
uR No. 8
Facts:
Petitionei Noima Nabeza contenus that on the fiist week of Nay
99, she anu hei co-employees at the Botel Supieme in Baguio
City weie askeu by the hotels management to sign an instiument
attesting to the latteis compliance with minimum wage anu
othei laboi stanuaiu piovisions of law. Petitionei signeu the
affiuavit but iefuseu to go to the City Piosecutois 0ffice to sweai
to the veiacity anu contents of the affiuavit as instiucteu by
management. The affiuavit was neveitheless submitteu on the
same uay to the Regional 0ffice of the Bepaitment of Laboi anu
Employment in Baguio City.
The affiuavit was uiawn by management foi the sole puipose of
iefuting finuings of the Laboi Inspectoi of B0LE appaiently
auveise to the piivate iesponuent. Aftei she iefuseu to pioceeu
to the City Piosecutois 0ffice, petitionei states that she was
oiueieu by the hotel management to tuin ovei the keys to hei
living quaiteis anu to iemove hei belongings fiom the hotel
piemises. Accoiuing to hei, iesponuent stiongly chiueu hei foi
iefusing to pioceeu to the City Piosecutois 0ffice to attest to the
affiuavit. She theieaftei ieluctantly fileu a leave of absence fiom
hei job which was uenieu by management. When she attempteu
to ietuin to woik on Nay 99, the hotels cashiei infoimeu hei
that she shoulu not iepoit to woik anu, insteau, continue with
hei unofficial leave of absence.
Consequently, thiee uays aftei hei attempt to ietuin to woik,
petitionei fileu a complaint foi illegal uismissal befoie the
Aibitiation Bianch of the National Laboi Relations Commission H
CAR Baguio City. In auuition to hei complaint foi illegal uismissal,
she allegeu unueipayment of wages, non-payment of holiuay pay,
seivice incentive leave pay, th month pay, night uiffeiential
anu othei benefits.
Responuing to the allegations foi illegal uismissal, piivate
iesponuent Petei Ng allegeu befoie Laboi Aibitei that petitionei
suiieptitiously left hei job without notice to the management anu
that she actually abanuoneu hei woik. Be maintaineu that theie
was no basis foi the money claims foi unueipayment anu othei
benefits as these weie paiu in the foim of facilities to petitionei
anu the hotels othei employees. Laboi Aibitei uismisseu the
complaint. 0n Apiil 99, iesponuent NLRC piomulgateu its
assaileu Resolution affiiming the Laboi Aibiteis uecision.
Issue:
W0N the employei's exeiteu piessuie, in the foim of iestiaint,
inteifeience oi coeicion, against his employees iight to institute
conceiteu action foi bettei teims anu conuitions of employment
constitutes unfaii laboi piactice.
Held:
The Couit iuleu that theie was unfaii laboi piactice.
Without uoubt, the act of compelling employees to sign an
instiument inuicating that the employei obseiveu laboi
stanuaius piovisions of law when he might have not, togethei
with the act of teiminating oi coeicing those who iefuse to
coopeiate with the employeis scheme constitutes unfaii laboi
piactice. The fiist act cleaily pieempts the iight of the hotels
woikeis to seek bettei teims anu conuitions of employment
thiough conceiteu action. Foi iefusing to coopeiate with the
piivate iesponuents scheme, petitionei was obviously helu up as
an example to all of the hotels employees, that they coulu only
cause tiouble to management at gieat peisonal
inconvenience.Implicit in the act of petitioneis teimination anu
the subsequent filing of chaiges against hei was the waining that
they woulu not only be uepiiveu of theii means of livelihoou, but
also possibly, theii peisonal libeity.
uianting that meals anu louging weie pioviueu anu inueeu
constituteu facilities, such facilities coulu not be ueuucteu
without the employei complying fiist with ceitain legal
iequiiements. Without satisfying these iequiiements, the
employei simply cannot ueuuct the value fiom the employees
wages. Fiist, pioof must be shown that such facilities aie
customaiily fuinisheu by the tiaue.Seconu, the piovision of
ueuuctible facilities must be voluntaiily accepteu in wiiting by
the employee. Finally, facilities must be chaigeu at faii anu
ieasonable value. These iequiiements weie not met in the
instant case.
Noie significantly, the foou anu louging, oi the electiicity anu
watei consumeu by the petitionei weie not facilities but
supplements.A benefit oi piivilege gianteu to an employee foi
the convenience of the employei is not a facility. The ciiteiion in
making a uistinction between the two not so much lies in the kinu
(foou, louging) but the puipose. Consiueiing that hotel woikeis
aie iequiieu to woik uiffeient shifts anu aie expecteu to be
available at vaiious ouu houis, theii ieauy availability is a
necessaiy mattei in the opeiations of a small hotel, such as the
piivate iesponuents hotel.
Malayang Samaban ng mga Manggagawa sa M. Creenfield
{MSMC-UWP] vs. Ramos
|uR 9, Apiil j
uctx: Nalayang Samahan ng mga Nanggagawa sa N. uieenfielu,
Inc., (local union), is an affiliate of 0niteu Lumbei anu ueneial
Woikeis of the Philippines (feueiation). 0n Septembei 98,
a local union election was helu unuei the auspices of the 0LuWP
wheiein NSNu-0WP, Beua Nagualena villanueva, anu the othei
union officeis weie pioclaimeu as winneis. 0n Apiil 988, the
local union helu a geneial membeiship meeting but seveial union
membeis faileu to attenu the meeting. Anu so, the local union
wiote 0LuWP a lettei iequesting it to ueuuct the union fines
fiom the wagessalaiies of those union membeis who faileu to
attenu the geneial membeiship meeting but was uisappioveu by
the Secietaiy ueneial. The lattei then wiote N. uieenfielu a lettei
auvising it not to ueuuct the fifty-peso fine fiom the salaiies of
the union membeis. (Peio inimpose paiin ni N. uieenfielu kasi
pag ui uaw nia ginawa, may mavviolate sya na laws) The
imposition of P. fine became the subject of bittei
uisagieement between the Feueiation anu the local union
culminating in the latteis ueclaiation of geneial autonomy.
0n Septembei 988, the officials of 0LuWP calleu a Special
National Executive Boaiu Neeting at Nasipit, Agusan uel Noite
wheie a Resolution was passeu placing the NSNu unuei
tiusteeship anu appointing Cesai Claiete as auministiatoi. 0n
0ctobei 988, the saiu auministiatoi wiote the company
infoiming the lattei of its uesignation of a ceitain Alfieuo
Kalingking as local union piesiuent anu uisauthoiizing the
incumbent union officeis fiom iepiesenting the employees,
which was piotesteu by the NSNu. NSNu union officeis then
ieceiveu iuentical letteis fiom the auministiatoi iequiiing them
to explain within houis why they shoulu not be iemoveu fiom
theii office anu expelleu fiom union membeiship. Bespite ieply,
the officeis weie expelleu fiom the 0LuWP. 0n the same uay, the
feueiation auviseu iesponuent company of the expulsion of the
union officeis anu uemanueu theii sepaiation fiom
employment puisuant to the 0nion Secuiity Clause in theii
collective baigaining agieement. The Feueiation fileu a Notice of
Stiike to compel the company to effect the immeuiate
teimination of the expelleu union officeis.
0n Naich 989, unuei the piessuie of a thieateneu stiike, the
company teiminateu the union officeis fiom employment,
seiving them iuentical copies of the teimination lettei. This
piovokeu some of the membeis of the local union to uemonstiate
theii piotest foi the uismissal of the saiu union officeis. Some
union membeis left theii woik posts anu walkeu out of the
company piemises. 0n Naich 989, the uismisseu union
officeis fileu an uigent petition piaying foi the suspension of the
effects of theii teimination fiom employment. Bowevei, the
petition was uismisseu. 0n August 989, NSNu fileu a veiifieu
complaint with the Aibitiation Bianch, National Capital Region,
B0LE, Nanila, chaiging the coipoiation, etc. of unfaii laboi
piactice which consists of union busting, illegal uismissal, illegal
suspension inteifeience in union activities, uisciimination,
thieats, intimiuation, coeicion, violence, anu oppiession. 0n
Becembei 99, finuing the teimination to be valiu in compliance
with the union secuiity clause of the collective baigaining
agieement, Laboi Aibitei Ciesencio Ramos uismisseu the
complaint. NSNu then appealeu to the NLRC. The Fiist Bivision
affiimeu the Laboi Aibiteis uisposition. With the uenial of theii
motion foi ieconsiueiation on 8 }anuaiy 99, NSNu elevateu
the case to the Supieme Couit.
Ixxue: W0N the company was guilty of 0LP
HelJ: Yes. A company may valiuly uismiss employees expelleu
by the union foi uisloyalty unuei the union secuiity clause of the
CBA upon iecommenuation by the union. Bowevei, such
uismissal shoulu not be uone hastily anu summaiily theieby
eiouing the EEs' iight to uue piocess, self-oiganization anu
secuiity of tenuie. Even on the assumption that the union hau
valiu giounus to expel the union officeis, uue piocess iequiies
that they be accoiueu a sepaiate heaiing by the company. Even if
theie is a stipulation in the union secuiity clause wheieby the
union unueitook the company fiee fiom any liability iesulting
fiom such a uismissal, the company may be helu liable if it was
iemiss in its uuty to accoiu the employees theii iight to be heaiu
on the mattei. Bismissal, even unuei a union secuiity clause,
must always be effecteu only aftei piioi notice anu heaiing. In
this case, petitionei union officeis weie expelleu foi allegeuly
committing acts of uisloyalty to the feueiation. The company uiu
not inquiie into the cause of the expulsion anu meiely ielieu
upon the feueiation's allegations.
NATIUNAL CUNCRESS UF UNIUNS IN THE SUCAR INDUSTRY
UF THE PHILS {NACUSIP] vs. HUN. FERRER-CALLE)A {99]

FACTS: Bacongcogon Sugai anu Rice Nilling Co. enteieu into a
CBA with iesponuent National Feueiation of Sugai Woikeis
(NFSW). When the CBA expiieu, it was extenueu foi anothei
yeais with ieseivation to negotiate foi its amenument,
paiticulaily on wage incieases, houis of woik, anu othei teims
anu conuitions of employment.

Bowevei, aueaulock in negotiation ensueu on the mattei of wage
incieases anu optional ietiiement. In oiuei to obviate fiiction
anu tension, the paities agieeu on a suspension to pioviue a
cooling-off peiiou to give them time to evaluate anu fuithei stuuy
theii positions. Bence, a Laboi Nanagement Council was set up
anu conveneu, with a iepiesentative of the Bepaitment of Laboi
anu Employment, acting as chaiiman, to iesolve the issues.

Petitionei fileu fileu a "petition foi uiiect ceitification oi
ceitification election" among the iank
anu file woikeis of Bacongcogon. Responuent NSFW moveu to
uismiss the petition on the giounus that the petition was fileu out
of time anu that theie is a ueaulockeu of CBA negotiation

Neu-Aibitei: uenieu the Notion to Bismiss anu uiiect the
conuuct of a ceitification election among iank-anu-file employees

BLR: set asiue the oiuei of the Neu-Aibitei anu iuleu in favoi of
iesponuent

ISSUE: Whethei the BLR committeu giave abuse of uiscietion.

HELD: N0. Petition Benieu.

The "Beaulock Bai" Rule simply pioviues that a petition foi
ceitification election can only be enteitaineu if theie is no
penuing baigaining ueaulock submitteu to conciliation oi
aibitiation oi hau become the subject of a valiu notice of stiike oi
lockout. The piincipal puipose is to ensuie stability in the
ielationship of the woikeis anu the management.

It is a iule in this juiisuiction that only a ceitifieu CBA i.e., an
agieement uuly ceitifieu by the BLR may seive as a bai to
ceitification elections. This iule simply pioviues that a petition
foi ceitification election oi a motion foi inteivention can only be
enteitaineu within sixty uays piioi to the expiiy uate of an
existing collective baigaining agieement. 0theiwise put, the iule
piohibits the filing of a petition foi ceitification election uuiing
the existence of a CBA except within the fieeuom peiiou, as it is
calleu, when the saiu agieement is about to expiie. The puipose,
obviously, is to ensuie stability in the ielationships of the
woikeis anu the management by pieventing fiequent
mouifications of any CBA eailiei enteieu into by them in goou
faith anu foi the stipulateu oiiginal peiiou.



LA SUERTE CICAR & CICARETTE FACTURY vs. DIRECTUR UF
THE BLR {98]

FACTS: The La Sueite Cigai anu Cigaiette Factoiy Piovincial
anu Netio Nanila Sales Foice Association applieu foi anu was
gianteu chaptei status by the National Association of Tiaue
0nions (NAT0). Sometime latei, local union membeis signeu a
joint lettei withuiawing theii membeiship in NAT0.

The local union anu NAT0 fileu a petition foi ceitification
election. The company opposeu on the giounu that it was not
suppoiteu by at least % (now %) of the pioposeu
baigaining unit because (a) of the allegeu 8 membeis of the
local union, hau withuiawn piioi to the filing of the petition,
anu (b) of the allegeu membeis of the union weie not
employees of the company but weie inuepenuent contiactois.
The BLR uiiectoi uenieu the company's objection

Issue: Whethei the withuiawal of unions fiom NAT0 affecteu
the petition foi ceitification election insofai as the %
iequiiement is conceineu

HELD: YES. The SC ieveiseu the BLR, it appeaiing that the
union membeis has withuiawn theii suppoit to the petition
BEF0RE the filing of saiu petition. It woulu be otheiwise if the
withuiawal was maue AFTER the filing of the petition foi it
woulu then be piesumeu that the withuiawal was not fiee anu
voluntaiy. The piesumption woulu aiise that the withuiawal was
piocuieu thiough uuiess, coeicion oi foi valuable consiueiation.
In othei woius, the uistinction must be that withuiawals maue
befoie the filing of the petition aie piesumeu voluntaiy unless
theie is convincing pioof to the contiaiy, wheieas withuiawals
maue aftei the filing of the petition aie ueemeu involuntaiy.
The ieason foi such uistinction is that if the withuiawal oi
ietiaction is maue befoie the filing of the petition, the names of
employees suppoiting the petition aie supposeu to be helu seciet
to the opposite paity. Logically, any such withuiawal oi
ietiaction shows voluntaiiness in the absence of pioof to the
contiaiy. Noieovei, it becomes appaient that such employees
hau not given consent to the filing of the petition, hence the
subsciiption iequiiement has not been met.
We holu anu iule that the membeis of iesponuent local union
aie uealeis oi inuepenuent contiactois. They aie not employees
of petitionei company. With the withuiawal by membeis of
theii suppoit to the petition piioi to oi befoie the filing theieof,
making a total of , the iemainuei of out of the 8 allegeu to
have suppoiteu the petition can haiuly be saiu to iepiesent the
union.

REYES vs. TRA)ANU {99]

FACTS: The BLR authoiizeu the conuuct of ceitification
election among the employees of Tii-0nion Inuustiies
Coipoiation. The competing unions weie the T0E0- 0LALIA anu
T0PAS. 0f the 8 woikeis initially ueemeu to be qualifieu
voteis, only actually took pait in the election. Among the
who cast theii votes, weie membeis of the Iglesia ni Kiisto
(INK)
The ballots pioviueu foi choices: (a) T0PAS; (b) T0E0-
0LALIA; anu (c) N0 0NI0N.
The challengeu votes weie those cast by the INK
membeis. They weie segiegateu anu excluueu fiom the final
count because the competing unions agieeu eailiei that the INK
membeis shoulu not be alloweu to vote "because they aie not
membeis of any union anu iefuseu to paiticipate in the pievious
ceitification election."

The INK employees piotesteu the exclusion of theii votes.
They fileu a petition to cancel the election alleging that it "was not
faii" anu the iesult theieof uiu "not ieflect the tiue sentiments of
the majoiity of the employees." T0E0-0LALIA opposeu the
petition. It contenueu that petitioneis "uo not have legal
peisonality to piotest the iesults of the election because they aie
not membeis of eithei the contenuing unions, but of the INK
which piohibits its followeis to, on ieligious giounus, fiom
joining oi foiming any laboi oiganization.

Neu-Aibitei: seeing no meiit in the INK employees' petition,
ceitifieu the T0E0-0LALIA as the sole anu exclusive baigaining
agent of the iank-anu-file employees.

BLR: uenieu the appeal of the petitionei

Issue: Whethei the INK membeis may vote in the ceitification
election

HELD: YES. Logically, the iight N0T to join, affiliate with, oi assist
any union, anu to uisaffiliate oi iesign fiom a laboi oiganization,
is subsumeu in the iight to join, affiliate with, oi assist any union,
anu to maintain membeiship theiein. The iight to foim oi join a
laboi oiganization necessaiily incluues the iight to iefuse oi
iefiain fiom exeicising saiu iight. It is self-eviuent that just as no
one shoulu be uenieu the exeicise of a iight gianteu by law, so
also, no one shoulu be compelleu to exeicise such a confeiieu
iight. The fact that a peison has opteu to acquiie membeiship in
a laboi union uoes not piecluue his subsequently opting to
ienounce such membeiship.
In the Ceitification Election, all membeis of the unit, whethei
union membeis oi not, have the iight to vote. 0nion membeiship
is not pieiequisite. If majoiity of the unit membeis uo not want a
union, as expiesseu in the ceitification election, such majoiity
uecision must be iespecteu. Bence, the INK membeis may vote.

NATIUNAL FEDERATIUN UF LABUR vs. SECRETARY UF
LABUR {998]

FACTS: A ceitification election was conuucteu among the
iank-anu-file employees of the Bijo Plantation, Inc. (BPI).
Petitionei NFL (National Feueiation of Laboi) was chosen as
the baigaining agent of its iank-anu-file employees fiauu anu
iiiegulaiities to be tiue.

Piotests fileu by the company anu thiee othei unions against
the iesults of the election on the giounu that the ceitification
election was maiieu by massive fiauu anu iiiegulaiities because
numbei of employees weie not able to cast theii votes because
they weie not piopeily notifieu of the uate Laboi Secietaiy:
uenieu the petition to annul the election anu insteau ceitifieu
petitionei NFL as the sole anu exclusive baigaining
iepiesentative of the iank-anu- file employees of piivate
iesponuent BPI.

Bowevei, on motion of BPI, the Secietaiy of Laboi, ieveiseu
his iesolution. NFL's NR was uenieu. Bence, this petition

Issue: Whethei the B0LE shoulu not have given uue couise to
piivate iesponuents petition foi annulment of the iesults of the
ceitification election.

HELD: The SC iuleu in favoi of the NFL. The woikeis in this case
weie uenieu this oppoitunity. Not only weie a substantial
numbei of them uisfianchiseu, theie weie, in auuition,
allegations of fiauu anu othei iiiegulaiities which put in question
the integiity of the election. Woikeis wiote letteis anu maue
complaints piotesting the conuuct of the election. The Repoit of
Neu-Aibitei Puia who investigateu these allegations founu the
allegations of fiauu anu iiiegulaiities to be tiue.
The SC invaliuateu the ceitification election upon a showing of
uisfianchisement, lack of seciecy in the voting anu biibeiy. The
woikeis iight to self- oiganization as enshiineu in both the
Constitution anu Laboi Coue woulu be ienueieu nugatoiy if theii
iight to choose theii collective baigaining iepiesentative weie
uenieu. Inueeu, the policy of the Laboi Coue favois the holuing of
a ceitification election as the most conclusive way of choosing the
laboi oiganization to iepiesent woikeis in a collective
baigaining unit. In case of uoubt, the uoubt shoulu be iesolveu in
favoi of the holuing of a ceitification election.


MAGSALIN v. NOWM
FACTS
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., nc., herein petitioner, engaged the
services of respondent workers as "sales route helpers for a
limited period of five months. After five months, respondent
workers were employed by petitioner company on a day-to-day
basis to substitute for regular sales route helpers whenever the
latter would be unavailable or when there would be an unexpected
shortage of manpower in any of its work places or an unusually
high volume of work. The practice was for the workers to wait
every morning outside the gates of the sales office of petitioner
company. f thus hired, the workers would then be paid their wages
at the end of the day.

Ultimately, respondent workers asked petitioner company to
extend to them regular appointments. Petitioner company refused.

November 7, 1997 - 23 of the temporary workers (herein
respondents) filed with the NLRC a complaint for the regularization
of their employment with petitioner company. The complaint was
amended a number of times to include other complainants that
ultimately totaled 58 workers. Claiming that petitioner company
meanwhile terminated their services, respondent workers filed a
notice of strike and a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair
labor practice with the NLRC.

01 April 1998 voluntary arbitration - voluntary arbitrator rendered a
decision dismissing the complaint on the thesis that respondents
(then complainants) were not regular employees of petitioner
company.

CA: reversed and set aside the ruling of the voluntary arbitrator.
Petitioners were declared regular employees of Coca Cola
Bottlers; dismissal illegal; ordered to reinstate the workers

ISSUES
1. WON the nature of work of respondents in the company is of
such nature as to be deemed necessary and desirable in the usual
business or trade of petitioner that could qualify them to be regular
employees
2. WON the quitclaims executed by the 36 individual respondents
were valid

HELD
1. YES. n determining whether an employment should be
considered regular or non-regular, the applicable test is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed
by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer.

Reasoning:
a. ntentionalist approach - Even while the language of law
(Art 280)8 might have been more definitive, the clarity of
its spirit and intent, i.e., to ensure a "regular worker's
security of tenure, however, can hardly be doubted.
b. Although the work to be performed is only for a specific
project or seasonal, where a person thus engaged has
been performing the job for at least one year, even if the
performance is not continuous or is merely intermittent,
the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its
performance as being sufficient to indicate the necessity
or desirability of that activity to the business or trade of
the employer. The employment of such person is also
then deemed to be regular with respect to such activity
and while such activity exists.
c. "The postproduction activities done by sales route
helpers are important. The nature of the work performed
must be viewed from a perspective of the business or
trade in its entirety and not on a confined scope.
d. The repeated rehiring of respondent workers and the
continuing need for their services clearly attest to the
necessity or desirability of their services in the regular
conduct of the business or trade of petitioner company.
e. A contract of employment is impressed with public
interest. The provisions of applicable statutes are
deemed written into the contract, and "the parties are not
at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships
from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply
contracting with each other.

2. YES. While quitclaims executed by employees are commonly
frowned upon as being contrary to public policy and are ineffective
to bar claims for the full measure of their legal rights, there are,
however, legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and
reasonable settlement of laborers' claims which should be so
respected by the Court as the law between the parties. Where the
person making the waiver has done so voluntarily, with a full
understanding thereof, and the consideration for the quitclaim is
credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as
being a valid and binding undertaking. "Dire necessity is not an
acceptable ground for annulling the release, when it is not shown
that the employee has been forced to execute it.

Disposition: Questioned decision of the Court of Appeals, is
AFFRMED with MODFCATON in that the "Release, Waiver and
Quitclaim executed by the thirty-six (36) individual respondents
are hereby declared VALD and LEGAL.



SERRANO v. NLRC
FACTS: Serrano was a regular employee of setann Department
Store as the head of Security Checker. n 1991, as a cost-cutting
measure, setann phased out its entire security section and
engaged the services of an independent security agency.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal among others.
Labor arbiter ruled in his favor as setann failed to establish that it
had retrenched its security section to prevent or minimize losses to
its business; that private respondent failed to accord due process
to petitioner; that private respondent failed to use reasonable
standards in selecting employees whose employment would be
terminated. NLRC reversed the decision and ordered petitioner to
be given separation pay.
ISSUE: Whether or not the hiring of an independent security
agency by the private respondent to replace its current security
section a valid ground for the dismissal of the employees classed
under the latter.
HELD: An employer's good faith in implementing a redundancy
program is not necessarily put in doubt by the availment of the
services of an independent contractor to replace the services of
the terminated employees to promote economy and efficiency.
Absent proof that management acted in a malicious or arbitrary
manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment
by an employer.
f termination of employment is not for any of the cause provided
by law, it is illegal and the employee should be reinstated and paid
backwages. To contend that even if the termination is for a just
cause, the employee concerned should be reinstated and paid
backwages would be to amend Art 279 by adding another ground
for considering dismissal illegal.
f it is shown that the employee was dismissed for any of the
causes mentioned in Art 282, the in accordance with that article,
he should not be reinstated but must be paid backwages from the
time his employment was terminated until it is determined that the
termination of employment is for a just cause because the failure
to hear him before he is dismissed renders the termination without
legal effect.

WACK WACK GoIf & Country CIub v. NLRC

FACTS: A large portion of the Wack Wack (WW) clubhouse
(including the kitchen) was destroyed by fire, and because of this,
the management had to suspend operations of the Food and
Beverage department, requiring the suspension of 54 employees.
The Employees' Union found the suspension as arbitrary and
constitutive of union-busting, and went on strike. The parties soon
after entered into an amicable settlement, whereby a "special
separation benefit/ retirement package was formulated. The same
provides for, among other things, a 1 month separation pay for
every year of service, and be considered on priority basis for
employment by concessionaires and/or contractors, and even by
the club, upon full resumption of operations.

The package was availed of by 3 employees (Cagasan,
Dominguez, and Baluyot), who received large sums of money as
separation pay. Soon after, WW entered into a Management
Contract with Business Staffing and Management nc (BSM),
whereby the latter will provide management services for WW.
Cagasan and Dominguez filed their application for employment
with BMS. They, by reason of the priority given by the separation
package, were rehired on probationary status by BMS.

WW also engaged other contractors in the operations of the club
(like janitorial services, Finance and accounting services).
Because of the various management service contracts, BMS
made an organizational analysis and manpower evaluation to
streamline its operations. t found the positions of Cagasan and
Domiguez redundant, and subsequently terminated them.
Cagasan and Dominguez then filed complaints in the NLRC for
illegal dismissal against WW. NLRC ordered reinstatement

ISSUES
1. WON BMS is an independent contractor (which will answer the
question as WON there was an employer-employee relationship)
2. WON the employees were illegally dismissed

HELD
1. YES
Reasoning: An independent contractor is one who undertakes
"job contracting,i.e., a person who:
a. carries on an independent business and undertakes the
contract work on his own account under his own
responsibility according to his own manner and method,
free from the control and direction of his employer or
principal in all matters connected with the performance of
the work except as to the results thereof; and
b. has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipments, machineries, work premises and other
materials which are necessary in the conduct of the
business.

Jurisprudence shows that determining the existence of an
independent contractor relationship, several factors may be
considered, such as, but not necessarily confined to, whether or
not the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the
nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and
duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of
specified pieces of work; the control and supervision of the work to
another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing, and
payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the premises;
the duty to supply premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor;
and the mode, manner and terms of payment.

There is indubitable evidence showing that BSM is an
independent contractor, engaged in the management of projects,
business operations, functions, jobs and other kinds of business
ventures, and has sufficient capital and resources to undertake its
principal business. t had provided management services to
various industrial and commercial business establishments.

n December 1993, Labor Sec. Laguesma, in a case, recognized
BSM as an independent contractor. As a legitimate job contractor,
there can be no doubt as to the existence of an employer-
employee relationship between the contractor and the workers.
Thus, there is no employer-employee relation between WW and
the workers.

2. NO
Ratio: As there was no employer-employee relationship between
WW and the complainants, there can be no illegal dismissal.
Reasoning: The complainants (private respondents herein) were
validly terminated upon their option to take the separation package
provided by WW. Thus, the same have no cause of action against
WW.


MERALCO vs. HON. QUISUMBING

FACTS: A petition for certification election was filed by the labor
organization of staff and technical employees of MERALCO
seeking to represent regular employees of MERALCO. MERALCO
contended that those in the Patrol Division and Treasury Security
Service Section, since these employees are tasked with providing
security to the company, they are not eligible to join the rank and
file bargaining unit. The Med-Arbiter ruled that having been
excluded from the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement for
rank and file employees, these employees have the right to form a
union of their own, except those employees performing managerial
functions. The Secretary of Labor affirmed said order.

Issue: eter security guards may join rank-and-file or
supervisors union

HeId:
Under the old rules, security guards were barred from joining a
labor organization of the rank and file, under RA 6715, they may
now freely join a labor organization of the rank and file or that of
the supervisory union, depending on their rank. By accommodating
supervisory employees, the Secretary of Labor must likewise apply
the provisions of RA 6715 to security guards by favorably allowing
them free access to a labor organization, whether rank and file or
supervisory, in recognition of their constitutional right to self-
organization.



ALCATEL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. RELOS
FACTS: Alcatel is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in the
business of installation and supply of telecommunications
equipment. Petitioner Delos Reyes was a former Administrative
Officer of Alcatel. On 4 January 1988, Alcatel offered Rene Relos
temporary employment as Estimator/Draftsman Civil Works to
assist in the preparation of manholes and conduit design for the
proposal preparation for PLDT X-5 project from 4 January 1988 to
28 February 1988. On 1 March 1988, Alcatel again offered
respondent temporary employment in the same capacity to assist
in the PLDT's X-4 OT project from 1 March 1988 to 30 April 1988.
Subsequently, Alcatel undertook a project which involved the
installation of microwave antennas and towers in Eastern Visayas
and Eastern Mindanao for the Philippine Long Distance Company,
in which Relos was offered temporary employment as Civil Works
nspector, to assist in the implementation from 1 February 1991 to
31 March 1991.
Upon the expiration of his contract, respondent was again offered
temporary employment this time as Civil Works Engineer from 1
April 1991 to 30 September 1991.

Respondent was offered
temporary employment in the same capacity five more times.
Then, on 1 August 1992, Alcatel hired respondent as project
employee to work as Civil Engineer from 1 August 1992 to 31 July
1993. The former renewed respondent's contract twice. n a letter
dated 22 December 1993,

Alcatel informed respondent that the
civil works portion of the project was near completion; however,
the remaining works encountered certain delays and had not been
completed as scheduled. Alcatel then extended respondent's
employment for another three months or until 31 March 1994.
Thereafter, Alcatel employed respondent as a Site nspector until
31 December 1995.
On 11 December 1995, Alcatel informed respondent that the
project would be completed on 31 December 1995 and that his
contract with Alcatel would expire on the same day.

Alcatel asked
respondent to settle all his accountabilities with the company and
advised him that he would be called if it has future projects that
require his expertise.
n March 1997, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
separation pay, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime pay, damages,
and attorney's fees against Alcatel. Respondent alleged that he
was a regular employee of Alcatel and that he was dismissed
during the existence of the project.
LA: declared that respondent was a regular employee of Alcatel.
The Labor Arbiter also ruled that respondent was illegally
dismissed and, therefore, entitled to back wages.
NLRC: reversed the Labor Arbiter's Decision and dismissed
respondent's complaint for illegal dismissal. The NLRC declared
that respondent was a project employee and that respondent was
not illegally dismissed but that his employment contract expired.
Motion for reconsideration was denied.
CA: reinstated the Labor Arbiter's Decision. Alcatel filed a motion
for reconsideration. n its 14 June 2004 Resolution, the Court of
Appeals but was denied.
ISSUE:
1. Whether respondent was a regular employee or a project
employee; and

HELD:
The principal test for determining whether a particular employee is
a project employee or a regular employee is whether the project
employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the
time the employee is engaged for the project. "Project" may refer
to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual
business of the employer, but which is distinct and separate and
identifiable as such from the undertakings of the company. Such
job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable
times.
n review of respondent's employment contracts, SC was
convinced that respondent was a project employee. The specific
projects for which respondent was hired and the periods of
employment were specified in his employment contracts. The
services he rendered, the duration and scope of each employment
are clear indications that respondent was hired as a project
employee.
A project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the
status of a regular employee when the following concur:
1) There is a continuous rehiring of project
empIoyees even after the cessation of a project; and
2) The tasks performed by the alleged "project
employee" are vital, necessary and indispensable to the
usual business or trade of the employer.
While respondent performed tasks that were clearly vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of
Alcatel, respondent was not continuously rehired by Alcatel after
the cessation of every project. Records show that respondent was
hired by Alcatel from 1988 to 1995 for three projects, namely the
PLDT X-5 project, the PLDT X-4 OT project and the PLDT 1342
project. On 30 April 1988, upon the expiration of respondent's
contract for the PLDT X-4 OT project, Alcatel did not rehire
respondent until 1 February 1991, or after a Iapse of 33 months,
for the PLDT 1342 project. Alcatel's continuous rehiring of
respondent in various capacities from February 1991 to December
1995 was done entirely within the framework of one and the same
project the PLDT 1342 project. This did not make respondent a
regular employee of Alcatel as respondent was not continuously
rehired after the cessation of a project. Respondent remained a
project employee of Alcatel working on the PLDT 1342 project.
The employment of a project employee ends on the date specified
in the employment contract. Therefore, respondent was not
illegally dismissed but his employment terminated upon the
expiration of his employment contract. Here, Alcatel employed
respondent as a Site nspector until 31 December 1995.

VIOLETA v. NLRC
FACTS:
Violeta worked in Construction and Development Corporation of
the Philippines, a sister corporation of Dasmarias ndustrial and
Steelworks Corporation (DSC). DSC then hired him as Erector II
at one of its project from November 10, 1982 to December 3,
1984. On January 21, 1985, he was reassigned as Erector II for a
project, with vacation and sick leaves, and was designated as a
regular project employee at DSC's project for National Steel
Corporation (NSC) in ligan City. After receiving a salary
adjustment, he was again hired on June 6, 1989 as Handyman on
a construction project for NSC.

On February 10, 1992, he was
appointed for project employment, again as Handyman by private
respondent. Due to the completion of the particular item of work,
private respondent terminated the services of petitioner Violeta on
March 15, 1992.


Petitioner Baltazar started in the employ of CDCP on June 23,
1980. He was hired by private respondent as Lead Carpenter for a
project on October 1, 1981. Like petitioner Violeta, he was
transferred from one project to another as a regular project
employee.

On November 28, 1991, he was hired as Leadman by
private respondent in its project for NSC, but he was separated
from such employment on December 20, 1991 as a result of the
completion of said item of work.
Upon their separation, petitioners executed a quitclaim wherein
they declared that they have no claim against private respondent
and supposedly discharged private respondent from any liability
arising from their employment. Contending that they are already
regular employees who cannot be dismissed on the ground of
completion of the particular project where they are engaged,
petitioners filed two separate complaints for illegal dismissal
against private respondent, with a prayer for reinstatement and
back wages plus damages.
Private respondent argued that both are project employees based
on their declaration in their Appointments for Project Employment
and that they are employed only for the period and specific works
stated in their respective appointments.
LA: dismissed the claims of petitioners for lack of merit but
ordered private respondent to grant them separation pay. The
labor arbiter concluded that petitioners are project employees
based on their admission that they are regular project employees.
Thus, their employment was deemed coterminous with the project
for which their employer engaged them. Their separation was
declared valid and their claims for reinstatement and back wages
were denied. The award of separation pay was based on the
findings of the labor arbiter that it is the policy of private
respondent to pay employees who have rendered at least one year
of continuous service.
NLRC: reversed the decision of the labor arbiter and declared
petitioners' dismissal as illegal. According to the NLRC, although
the appointment contracts of petitioners specified fixed terms or
periods of employment, the fact that they were hired and
transferred from one project to another made both petitioners non-
project employees who cannot be terminated by reason alone of
the completion of the project. They were hired not only for one
particular project but different projects, one after the other.
MR: Upon motion for reconsideration, NLRC reversed itself and
set aside its earlier resolution. This time, it held that since the
termination of petitioners' employment was due to the completion
of the project, petitioners are therefore not entitled to separation
pay. t ruled that this would hold true even if petitioners were
categorized as regular project employees because their
employment was not permanent but coterminous with the projects
to which they were assigned. No other substantial reason was
given for the adjudicative turnabout.

ISSUES: WON Petitioners are ReguIar empIoyees.

HELD: YES. As Handyman and Erector , respectively, petitioners'
services are both necessary and vital to the operation of the
business of private respondent. This is not at all traversed, but is
even confirmed by the fact that they were continually and
successively assigned to the different projects of private
respondent and its sister company, CDCP.
The principal test for determining whether particular employees are
properly characterized as "project employees," as distinguished
from "regular employees," is whether or not the "project
employees" were assigned to carry out a "specific project or
undertaking," the duration (and scope) of which were specified at
the time the employees were engaged for that project. As defined,
project employees are those workers hired (1) for a specific project
or undertaking, and (2) the completion or termination of such
project or undertaking has been determined at the time of
engagement of the employee.
Based on the above criteria, petitioners are regular employees of
private respondent, and not project employees as postulated by
respondent NLRC. Petitioners' dismissal, therefore, could not be
justified by the completion of their items of work.
The predetermination of the duration or period of a project
employment is important in resolving whether one is a project
employee or not. On this score, the term period has been defined
to be "a length of existence; duration. A point of time marking a
termination as of a cause or an activity; an end, a limit, a bound;
conclusion; termination. A series of years, months or days in which
something is completed. A time of definite length or the period
from one fixed date to another fixed date."
There is no debate that petitioners were hired for a specific project
or undertaking. However, the records are barren of any definite
period or duration for the expiration of the assigned items of work
of petitioners at the time of their engagement. An examination of
said appointments reveal that the compIetion or termination of
the project for which petitioners were hired was not
determined at the start of their empIoyment. There is no
specific mention of the period or duration when the project
wiII be compIeted or terminated. n fact, the lines for "DATE OF
COVERAGE" in the appointments are left blank. The duration of
their work is "contingent upon the 57og7ess accom5ishment".
The contract gives private respondent the liberty to "determine the
personnel and the number as the work progresses." The
appointments of petitioners herein were not coterminous with NSC
ETL #3 Civil Works but with the "need" for such particular items of
work as were assigned to them, as distinguished from the
completion of the project. Petitioners' employment was not co-
existent with the duration of their particular work assignments
because their employer could, at any stage of such work,
determine whether their services were needed or not. Their
services could then be terminated even before the completion of
the phase of work assigned to them.
t is not enough that an employee is hired for a specific project or
phase of work. There must also be a determination of or a clear
agreement on the completion or termination of the project at the
time the employee is engaged if the objective of Article 280 is to be
achieved. Since this second requirement was not met in
petitioners' case, they should be considered as regular employees
despite their admissions and declarations that they are project
employees made under circumstances unclear to us.
There is another reason why we should rule in favor of petitioners.
Nowhere in the records is there any showing that private
respondent reported the compIetion of its projects and the
dismissaI of petitioners in its finished projects to the nearest
PubIic EmpIoyment Office in compliance with Policy nstruction
No. 20. Jurisprudence abounds with the consistent rule that the
failure of an employer to report to the nearest Public Employment
Office the termination of its workers' services every time a project
or a pase tereof is completed indicates that said workers are not
project employees. n the case at bar, only the last and final
termination of petitioners was reported to the aforementioned labor
office.
Private respondent should have filed as many reports of
termination as there were construction projects actually finished if
petitioners were indeed project employees, considering that
petitioners were hired and again rehired for various projects or the
phases of work therein. Just as important, the fact that
petitioners had rendered more than one year of service at the
time of their dismissaI overturns private respondent's
aIIegations that petitioners were hired for a specific or a fixed
undertaking for a Iimited period of time.
Public respondent contends that the gaps in the employment of
petitioners, consisting of the periods in between the completion of
one project and the engagement of petitioners in the next, show
that they could not have been regular employees under the control
of private respondent, and that petitioners could have applied for
or accepted employment from other employers during those
periods. This is puerile and speculative. n the first place, Article
280 of the Labor Code contemplates both continuous and broken
services.
The fact that petitioners signed quitcIaims wiII not bar them
from pursuing their cIaims against private respondent
because quitcIaims executed by Iaborers are frowned upon as
contrary to pubIic poIicy, and are ineffective to bar claims for the
full measure of the workers' legal rights. The so-called quitclaims
signed by petitioners were actually pro forma provisions printed in
the clearance certificate they had to get from private respondent.
These were not in the nature of a compromise but a compulsory
general release required from them, for which no consideration
was either given or even stated.




Maraguinot v. NLRC

FACTS: Petitioner maintains that he was employed by
respondents as part of the filming crew. He was later promoted as
an electrician. Petitioners' tasks contained of loading movie
equipment in the shoothing area. Petitioners sought the assistance
of their supervisor, Cesario, to facilitate their request that
respondents adjust their salary in accordance with the minimum
wage law. Mrs. Cesario informed petitioners that del Rosario would
agree to increase their salary only if they signed a blank
employment contract. As petitioner refused to sign, respondents
forced Enero (the other petitioner who worked as a crew member)
to go on leave. However, when he reported to work, respondent
refused to take him back. Maraguinot was dropped from the
company payroll but when he returned, he was again asked to sign
a blank employment contract, and when he still refused,
respondent's terminated his services. Petitioners thus sued for
illegal dismissal.

Private respondents assert that they contract persons called
producers to produce or make movies for private respondents and
contend that petitioners are project employees of the associate
producers, who act as independent contractors. Thus, there is no
ER-EE relationship. However, petitioners cited that their
performance of activities is necessary in the usual trade or
business of respondents and their work in continuous.

ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists

HELD: Ye s.
With regards to VVA's contention that it does not make movies but
merely distributes motion pictures, there is no sufficient proof to
prove this contention.

n respect to respondents' allegation that petitioners are project
employees, it is a settled rule that the contracting out of labor is
allowed only in case of job contracting. However, assuming that
the associate producers are job contactors, they must then be
engaged in the business of making motion pictures. Associate
producers must have tools necessary to make motion pictures.
However, the associate producers in this case have none of these.
The movie-making equipment are supplied to the producers and
owned by VVA. Thus, it is clear that the associate producer
merely leases the equipment from VVA.

n addition, the associate producers of VVA cannot be considered
labor-only contractors as they did not supply, recruit nor hire the
workers. t was Cesario, the Shooting Supervisor of VVA, who
recruited crew members. Thus, the relationship between VVA and
its producers or associate producers seems to be that of agency.

With regards to the issue of illegal dismissal, petitioners assert that
they were regular employees who were illegally dismissed.
Petitioners in this case had already attained the status of regular
employees in view of VVA's conduct. Thus, petitioners are entitled
to back wages. A project empIoyee or a member of a work pool
may acquire the status of a regular employee when:
a. there is a continuous rehiring of project employees
even after a cessation of project
b. the tasks performed by the alleged project employee
are vital and necessary to the business of employer

The tasks of petitioners in loading movie equipment and returning
it to VVA's warehouse and fixing the lighting system were vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer. Wherefore, petition is granted.




BRENT SCHOOL, INC vs. ZAMORA

FACTS: Respondent Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic
director by Brent School, nc. for a fixed and specific term of five
(5) years. Subsequent subsidiary agreements reiterated the same
terms and conditions, including the expiry date, as those contained
in the original contract. 3 months before the expiration of the
stipulated period, Alegre was terminated on the ground of
completion of contract and expiration of definite period of
employment. Alegre protested that since his services were
necessary and desirable in the usual business of his ER, and his
employment had lasted for 5 years, he had acquired the status of a
regular employee and could not be removed except for valid
cause.

Issue: eter Alegre was lawfully teminiated?

HELD: YES
ArticIe 280 does not proscribe or prohibit employment contract
with a fixed period, PROVDED the same is entered into by the
parties without any force, duress or improper pressure upon the
EE and in the absence of vitiating consent
Reason: Contracts of employment govern the relationship of the
parties. Any stipulation in the contract, not contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order and public policy, is valid, binding and
must be respected.
***This practice is however legally questionable if done in a more
or less continuous basis with the objective of avoiding
regularization as it in effect circumvents the law on security of
tenure of the workers.

n the CAB, the employment contract is valid, binding, and must be
respected.




PUREFOODS CORP. vs. NLRC

FACTS: Private respondents (numbering 906) were hired by
petitioner Pure Foods Corporation to work for a fixed period of
FVE MONTHS at its tuna cannery plant in General Santos City.
After the expiration of their respective contracts of employment,
their services were terminated. Hence, they filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal

LA: dismissed the complaint on the ground that the private
respondents were mere CONTRACTUAL WORKERS, and not
regular employees; hence, they could not avail of the law on
security of tenure.

NLRC: reversed LA holding that the private respondents were
regular employees. t declared that the contract of employment for
five months was a scheme to prevent [private respondents'] right
to security of tenure" and should therefore be struck down and
disregarded for being contrary to law, public policy, and morals.

Issue: eter private respondents are considered regular EEs?

HELD: YES. NLRC affirmed.
SC struck down as invalid a 5-month contract involving workers
who were performing activities usually necessary or desirable to
the business 'of the company.

The practice of hiring workers on uniformly fixed contract basis of 5
months, only to replace them upon the expiration of their contracts
with other workers on the same employment duration, was to
circumvent the constitutional guarantee on security of tenure and,
therefore, contrary to public policy. To uphold the contractual
arrangement between the employer and the workers would in
effect permit the former to avoid hiring permanent or regular
employees by simply hiring them on a "temporary or casual basis,
thereby violating the employees' security of tenure in their jobs.


VIERNES v. NLRC

FACTS
The 15 complainants' services were contracted as meter readers
by Benguet Electric Cooperative (BENECO) for less than a
month's duration from October 8 to 31, 1990. Their employment
contracts, couched in identical terms, read:
You are hereby appointed as METER READER
(APPRENTCE) under BENECO-NEA Management with
compensation at the rate of SXTY-SX PESOS AND
SEVENTY-FVE CENTAVOS (P66.75) per day from
October 08 to 31, 1990.

The said term notwithstanding, the complainants were allowed to
work beyond October 31, 1990, or until January 2, 1991. On
January 3, 1991, they were each served their identical notices of
termination dated December 29, 1990. The same read:
Please be informed that effective at the close of office
hours of December 31, 1990, your services with the
BENECO will be terminated. Your termination has nothing
to do with your performance. Rather, it is because we have
to retrench on personnel as we are already overstaffed.

The complainants filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal. t
is the contention of the complainants that they were not
apprentices but regular employees whose services were illegally
and unjustly terminated in a manner that was whimsical and
capricious. On the other hand, the respondent invokes Article 283
of the Labor Code in defense of the questioned dismissal.

LA: dismissed the complaints for illegal dismissal but directed
BENECO to extend the contract of each complainant, with the
exception of Viernes who was ordered to be appointed as regular
employee, a month's salary as indemnity for failure to give the 30-
day notice, and backwages.

NLRC: declared the complainants' dismissal illegal, thus ordering
their reinstatement to their former position as meter readers or to
any equivalent position with payment of backwages limited to one
year but deleting the award of indemnity and attorney's fees. The
award of underpayment of wages was affirmed.

ISSUES
1. WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering
the reinstatement of petitioners to their former position as meter
readers on probationary status in spite of its finding that they are
regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code
2. WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in limiting
the backwages of petitioners to one year only in spite of its finding
that they were illegally dismissed, which is contrary to the mandate
of full backwages until actual reinstatement but not to exceed 3
years
3. WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deleting
the award of indemnity pay which had become final because it was
not appealed and in deleting the award of attorney's fees because
of the absence of a trial-type hearing
4. WON the mandate of immediately executory on the
reinstatement aspect even pending appeal as provided in the
decision of Labor Arbiters equally applies in the decision of the
NLRC even pending appeal, by means of a motion for
reconsideration of the order reinstating a dismissed employee or
pending appeal because the case is elevated on certiorari before
the Supreme Court

HELD
1. YES
Ratio: There are two separate instances whereby it can be
determined that an employment is regular: (1) The particular
activity performed by the employee is necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer; or (2) if the employee has
been performing the job for at least a year.

Reasoning: Petitioners fall under the first category. They were
engaged to perform activities that are necessary to the usual
business of BENECO. We agree with the labor arbiter's
pronouncement that the job of a meter reader is necessary to the
business of BENECO because unless a meter reader records the
electric consumption of the subscribing public, there could not be a
valid basis for billing the customers. The fact that the petitioners
were allowed to continue working after the expiration of their
employment contract is evidence of the necessity and desirability
of their service to BENECO's business. n addition, during the
preliminary hearing of the case on February 4, 1991, BENECO
even offered to enter into another temporary employment contract
with petitioners. This only proves BENECO's need for the services
of the petitioners. With the continuation of their employment
beyond the original term, petitioners have become full-fledged
regular employees. The fact alone that the petitioners have
rendered service for a period of less than 6 months does not make
their employment status as probationary.

The principle [exception to the rule in Ratio] enunciated in Brent
School vs. Zamora applies only with respect to fixed term
employments. While it is true that petitioners were initially
employed on a fixed term basis as their employment contracts
were only for October 8 to 31, 1990, after October 31, 1990, they
were allowed to continue working in the same capacity as meter
readers without the benefit of a new contract or agreement or
without the term of their employment being fixed anew. After
October 31, 1990, the employment of petitioners is no longer on a
fixed term basis. The complexion of the employment relationship of
petitioners and BENECO is thereby totally changed. Petitioners
have attained the status of regular employees.

2. YES
Reasoning: Article 279 LC, as amended by RA 6715 [effective
March 21, 1989], provides that an illegally dismissed employee is
entitled to full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his
compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. Since petitioners were employed on October 8,
1990, the amended provision shall apply to the present case.
Hence, it was patently erroneous, tantamount to grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the NLRC in limiting to one year the back
wages awarded to petitioners.

3. YES
Ratio: An employer becomes liable to pay indemnity to an
employee who has been dismissed if, in effecting such dismissal,
the employer fails to comply with the requirements of due process

Reasoning: The indemnity is in the form of nominal damages
intended not to penalize the employer but to vindicate or recognize
the employee's right to procedural due process which was violated
by the employer. Under A2221 CC, nominal damages are
adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for
any loss suffered by him.
ndemnity is not incompatible with the award of back wages. These
two awards are based on different considerations. Back wages are
granted on grounds of equity to workers for earnings lost due to
their illegal dismissal from work. On the other hand, the award of
indemnity is meant to vindicate or recognize the right of an
employee to due process which has been violated by the
employer. n this case, BENECO failed to comply with the
provisions of Article 283 of the Labor Code which requires an
employer to serve a notice of dismissal upon the employees and to
the Department of Labor, at least one month before the intended
date of termination. As to the award of attorney's fees, the same is
justified by the provisions of Article 111 of the Labor Code.

4. YES
Reasoning: A223 LC is plain and clear that the decision of the
NLRC shall be final and executory after 10 calendar days from
receipt by the parties. n addition, Section 2(b), Rule V of the
New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides that "should there
be a motion for reconsideration entertained pursuant to Section 14,
Rule V of these Rules, the decision shall be executory after 10
calendar days from receipt of the resolution on such motion. We
find nothing inconsistent or contradictory between the two. The
provision of the NLRC Rules of Procedure merely provides for
situations where a motion for reconsideration is filed. Since the
Rules allow the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a decision
of the NLRC, it simply follows that the ten-day period provided
under Article 223 of the Labor Code should be reckoned from the
date of receipt by the parties of the resolution on such motion. n
the case at bar, petitioners received the resolution of the NLRC
denying their motion for reconsideration on October 22, 1992.
Hence, it is on November 2, 1992 that the questioned decision
became executory.

DispositionPetition PARTLY GRANTED. Decision of the NLRC is
MODFED. BENECO is ordered to reinstate petitioners to their
former or substantially equivalent position as regular employees,
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, with full back
wages from the time of their dismissal until they are actually
reinstated. The indemnity to petitioners is RENSTATED. BENECO
is also ordered to pay attorney's fees in the amount of 10% of the
total monetary award due to the petitioners. n all other respects
the assailed decision and resolution are AFFRMED



BUISER v. LEOGARDO

FACTS: Petitioners were employed by the private respondent
GENERAL TELEPHONE DRECTORY COMPANY as sales
representatives and charged with the duty of soliciting
advertisements for inclusion in a telephone directory.
The records show that petitioners luminada Ver Buiser and Ma.
Mercedes P. ntengan entered into an "Employment Contract (on
Probationary Status)" on May 26, 1980 with private respondent, a
corporation engaged in the business of publication and circulation
of the directory of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company. Petitioner Ma. Cecilia Rillo- Acuna entered into the
same employment contract on June 11, 1980 with the private
respondent. Among others, the "Employment Contract (On
Probationary
Status)" included the following common provisions:

The company hereby employs the employee as
telephone representative on a probationary status
for a period of eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May
1980 to October 1981, inclusive. t is understood
that during the probationary period of employment,
the Employee may be terminated at the pleasure of
the company without the necessity of giving notice
of termination or the payment of termination pay.
The Employee recognizes the fact that the nature
of the telephone sales representative's job is such
that the company would be able to determine his
true character, conduct and selling capabilities only
after the publication of the directory, and that it
takes about eighteen (18) months before his worth
as a telephone saw representative can be fully
evaluated inasmuch as the advertisement solicited
by him for a particular year are published in the
directory only the following year.

Private respondent prescribed sales quotas to be accomplished or
met by the petitioners. Failing to meet their respective sales
quotas, the petitioners were dismissed from the service by the
private respondent.

ISSUE

1. WON the probationary employment of petitioners herein is
eighteen (18) months instead of the mandated six (6) months
under the Labor Code, and WON petitioners are entitled to security
of tenure while under said probation for 18 months
2. WON petitioners were dismissed for a just and valid cause

HELD

1. Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to
six (6) months. The exception to this general rule is when the
parties to an employment contract may agree otherwise, such as
when the same is established by company policy or when the
same is required by the nature of work to be performed by the
employee.
n the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial
prerogatives in requiring a longer period of probationary
employment, such as in the present case where the probationary
period was set for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May, 1980 to
October, 1981 inclusive, especially where the employee must learn
a particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires
certain qualifications, skills, experience or training.
n the case at bar, it is shown that private respondent Company
needs at least eighteen (18) months to determine the character
and selling capabilities of the petitioners as sales representatives.
The Company is engaged in advertisement and publication in the
Yellow Pages of the PLDT Telephone Directories. Publication of
solicited ads are only made a year after the sale has been made
and only then win the company be able to evaluate the efficiency,
conduct, and selling ability of its sales representatives, the
evaluation being based on the published ads. Moreover, an
eighteen month probationary period is recognized by the Labor
Union in the private respondent company, which is Article V of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.

2. YES
The practice of a company in laying off workers because they
failed to make the work quota has been recognized in this
jurisdiction. (Philippine American Embroideries vs. Embroidery and
Garment Workers, 26 SCRA 634, 639).
n the case at bar, the petitioners' failure to meet the sales quota
assigned to each of them constitute a just cause of their dismissal,
regardless of the permanent or probationary status of their
employment. Failure to observe prescribed standards of work, or
to fulfill reasonable work assignments due to inefficiency may
constitute just cause for dismissal.
Such inefficiency is understood to mean failure to attain work goals
or work quotas, either by failing to complete the same within the
alloted reasonable period, or by producing unsatisfactory results.
This management prerogative of requiring standards availed of so
long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the
employer's interest.


MARIWASA V LEOGARDO

FACTS: Dequila was hired on probation by Mariwasa as a general
utility worker on Jan.10, 1979. After the probationary period of six
months, MAriwasa informed him that his work had proved
unsatisfactory and had failed to meet the required standards and
to give him a chance to improve his performance and qualify for
regular employment, instead of dispensing with his service then
and there, with his written consent Mariwasa extended his
probation period for another three months from July 10 to October
9, 1979. His performance, however, did not improve and on that
account Mariwasa terminated his employment at the end of the
extended period.

ISSUE
WON employer and employee may by agreement extend the
probationary period of employment beyond the six months
prescribed in A282 LC

HELD
YES
- An extension of the probationary period of employment may
lawfully be covenanted, notwithstanding the seemingly restrictive
language of Article 282.

Reasoning
- Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr . recognized agreements stipulating
longer probationary periods as constituting lawful exceptions to the
statutory prescription limiting such periods to six months, when it
upheld as valid an employment contract between an employer and
two of its employees that provided for an eigthteen-month
probation period. This Court there held:
- Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six
(6) months. The exception to this general rule is when the parties
to an employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when
the same is established by company policy or when the same is
required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee. n
the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial
prerogatives in requiring a longer period of probationary
employment.xxxxxx especially where the employee must learn a
particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires
certain qualifications, skills experience or training.
- n this case the inability of the probationer to make the grade
became apparent only at or about the end of the six-month period,
hence an extension could not have been pre-arranged as was
done in Buiser assumes no adverse significance, given the lack, of
any indication that the extension to which Dequila gave his
agreement was a mere stratagem of petitioners to avoid the legal
consequences of a probationary period satisfactorily completed.
For the extension of Dequila's probation was ex gratia, an act of
liberality on the part of his employer affording him a second
chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his worth
as an employee. Such an act cannot now unjustly be turned
against said employer's account to compel it to keep on its payroll
one who could not perform according to its work standards. The
law, surely, was never meant to produce such an inequitable
result.
- By voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the probationary
period, Dequila in effect waived any benefit attaching to the
completion of said period if he still failed to make the grade during
the period of extension. The Court finds nothing in the law which
by any fair interpretation prohibits such a waiver. And no public
policy protecting the employee and the security of his tenure is
served by prescribing voluntary agreements which, by reasonably
extending the period of probation, actually improve and further a
probationary employee's prospects of demonstrating his fitness for
regular employment.