G.R. No. 132564 October 20, 1999 SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Third Division, Q.C. and PRISCILA ENDOZO, respondents. FACTS: Private respondent Endozo was employed as domestic helper in Taiwan. The employment contract was for a definite period of one (1) year, with six (6) months probationary period. She stayed in Taiwan only for eleven (11) days as her employer terminated her services, and sent her home for alleged incompetence. Hence, private respondent filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal. Consequently, respondent's claim was transferred to the National Labor Relations Commission, Arbitration Branch, in San Pablo City. ISSUE: Whether the employer in Taiwan could lawfully terminate private respondent's employment as domestic helper for incompetence during the probationary period of her employment. HELD: It is an elementary rule in the law on labor relations that even a probationary employee is entitled to security of tenure. A probationary employee can not be terminated, except for cause. In this case, the employment contract was for a definite period of one (1) year, with six (6) months probationary period. After only eleven days of work, the employer dismissed private respondent without just cause. A probationary employee may be terminated on two grounds: (a) for just cause or (b) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. Under the contract of employment, the employer may terminate the services of private respondent during the probationary period for "being found losing ability to work." However, "the power of the employer to terminate a probationary employment contract is subject to limitations. First, it must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract. Secondly, the dissatisfaction of the employer must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the law; and thirdly, there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal." In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer. In this case, petitioner was not able to present convincing proof establishing respondent Endozo's alleged incompetence.

G.R. No. 75782 December 1, 1987 EURO-LINEA, PHILS., INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JIMMY O. PASTORAL, respondents. FACTS: On August 17, 1983, petitioner hired Pastoral as shipping expediter on a probationary basis for a period of six months ending February 18, 1984. However, prior to hiring by petitioner, Pastoral had been employed by Fitscher Manufacturing Corporation also as shipping expediter for more than one and a half years. Pastoral was absorbed by petitioner but under a probationary basis. On February 4, 1984, Pastoral received a memorandum dated January 31, 1984 terminating his probationary employment effective also on February 4, 1984 in view of his failure to meet the performance standards set by the company." To contest his dismissal, Pastoral filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner on February 6, 1984. On July 19, 1985, the Labor Arbiter found petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered to reinstate complainant with six months backwages. ISSUE: Whether private respondent's dismissal was justifiable. HELD: Although a probationary or temporary employee has a limited tenure, he still enjoys the constitutional protection of security of tenure. During his tenure of employment or before his contract expires, he cannot be removed except for cause as provided for by law. Finally, it is significant to note that in the interpretation of the protection to labor and social justice provisions of the constitution and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing the constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court has always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights. Petitioner not only failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate the cause of private respondent's dismissal, but likewise failed to cite particular acts or instances to show the latter's poor performance. Furthermore, what makes the dismissal highly suspicious is the fact that while petitioner claims that respondent was inefficient, it retained his services until the last remaining two weeks of the six months probationary employment. No less important is the fact that private respondent had been a shipping expediter for more than one and a half years before he was absorbed by petitioner. It therefore appears that the dismissal in question is without sufficient justification.

G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, respondents. FACTS: The petitioners challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of Labor and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS." In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section 3, of Article XIII, of the Constitution, providing for worker participation "in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law." ISSUE: Whether the assailed Department Order No. 1 of DOLE constitute an invalid exercise of legislative power. HELD: It is true that police power is the domain of legislature, but it does not mean that such an authority may not be lawfully delegated. The LABOR CODE itself in Art. 5 vests the DOLE with the rule-making powers in the enforcement thereof.

G.R. No. L-69870 November 29, 1988 NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. PEREZ, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, MANILA AND EUGENIA C. CREDO, respondents. FACTS: Respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), to which the petitioners appealed, rendered a decision directing NASECO to reinstate Credo to her former position, or substantially equivalent position, with six (6) months' backwages and without loss of seniority rights and other privileges appertaining thereto. In NASECO's comment in G.R. No. 70295, it is belatedly argued that the NLRC has no jurisdiction to order Credo's reinstatement. NASECO claims that, as a government corporation (by virtue of its being a subsidiary of the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a subsidiary wholly owned by the Philippine National Bank (PNB), which in turn is a government owned corporation), the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations. ISSUE: Whether the NLRC has jurisdiction to order Credos reinstatement. HELD: On the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs the instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the time of decision thereof, the NLRC has jurisdiction to accord relief to the parties. As an admitted subsidiary of the NIDC, in turn a subsidiary of the PNB, the NASECO is a government-owned or controlled corporation without original charter.

G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989 ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., et al., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent. FACTS: G.R. No. 79777 Squarely raised in this petition is the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, and R.A. No. 6657. G.R. No. 79310 The petitioners herein are landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill District, Victorias, Negros Occidental. Co-petitioner Planters' Committee, Inc. is an organization composed of 1,400 planter-members. This petition seeks to prohibit the implementation of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229. lease rentals to him. ISSUE: Whether R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are to be SUSTAINED against all the constitutional objections raised in the herein petitions. HELD: The promulgation of PD No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his powers under Martial Law has already been sustained in Gonzales vs. Estrella*. As for the power of President Aquino to promulgate Proclamation No. 131 and EO Nos. 228 and 229, the same was authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. * transitory provision of the 1973 Constitution [Art. XVII, Sec. 3 (2)] that 'all proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land and shall remain valid, legal, binding and effective even after ... the ratification of this Constitution.

G.R. No. 110524

March 14, 2000

DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC. and ESSO INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CO., LTD., respondents. FACTS: Both petitioners applied for leave of absence then informed their intention to avail of the optional early retirement plan in view of his twenty (20) years continuous service in the company. After availing their extension for leave of absence, they will be advised that they are dropped from the roster of crew members. Petitioners aver that after rendering 20 (twenty) consecutive year of service, performing activities which were necessary and desirable in the trade or business of private respondents, they should be considered regular employees. ISSUE: Whether the petitioners as contractual employees be considered as regular employees. HELD: An employment is also considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. In the case at bar, it is undisputed that petitioners were employees of private respondents until their services were terminated on September 1, 1989. They served in their capacity as Chief Engineers, performing activities which were necessary and desirable in the business of private respondents Esso International, a shipping company; and Trans-Global, its local manning agency which supplies the manpower and crew requirements of Esso International's vessels. It is, likewise, clear that petitioners had been in the employ of private respondents for 20 years. The records reveal that petitioners were repeatedly re-hired by private respondents even after the expiration of their respective eight-month contracts. Such repeated re-hiring which continued for 20 years, cannot but be appreciated as sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of petitioner's service to the private respondents' business or trade. Verily, as petitioners had rendered 20 years of service, performing activities which were necessary and desirable in the business or trade of private respondents, they are, by express provision of Article 280 of the Labor Code, considered regular employees.