May 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure

June 21, 2011Leslie C. DyComments off Here are selected May 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure: Section 10, Republic Act No. 8042; unconstitutional. Petitioner Yap was employed as an electrician for respondents vesselSection under a10 12-month contract. He was found to be illegally terminated with nine months remaining on his contract term. The Court Appeals (CA) awarded petitioner salaries for months as provided under of No. 8042. On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the and declared that petitioner was entitled toof his salaries for the full unexpired portion of histhree contract. The Court has previously declared inRepublic SerranoAct v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. (2009) that the clauseWorkers or CA for three months for protection every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less provided in the 5th paragraph Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is unconstitutional for being violative of the rights of Overseas Filipino (OFWs) to equal of the laws. The subject clause contains a suspect classification in that,but inof the computation of the monetary benefits fixed-term who are illegally discharged, it imposes aout 3month cap on the claim of and OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in the their contracts, none onstate the claims of other OFWs orgovernmental localof workers with employees fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles one classification of OFWs burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage. Moreover, subject clause does not or imply any definitive purpose; hence, the same violates not just petitioners to equal protection, but also his right to substantive due process under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Claudio S. Yap vs. Thenamaris Ships Management and Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc., G.R.right No. 179532, May 30, 2011 Doctrine of Operative Fact; applied as a matter of equity and fair play. Petitioner Yap was employed on respondents vessel under a 12-month contract. Upon finding that he was illegally terminated, the Court of Appeals (CA) awarded petitioner salaries for three months as provided under Sectionportion 10 of Republic Act No. the 8042 (RA 8042). While the case was pending the Supreme Court, Section 10 of RA 8042 to was declared unconstitutional. In deciding to award petitioner his salaries for the unexpired of hisof contract, Supreme Court rejected application of in the fact doctrine. As an exception the general rule, the doctrine applies only as a matter of equity and fair It entire recognizes that the existence a statute prior to a determination of the unconstitutionality is operative an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The doctrine is applicable when a play. declaration of unconstitutionality will an undue burden on those by who have relied To on rule the invalid law. This case should not included in the aforementioned exception. After all, it was not the fault of petitioner that he lost his job due to an impose act of illegal dismissal committed respondents. otherwise would be iniquitous to be petitioner and other OFWs, and would, in effect, send a wrong signal that principals/employers and recruitment/manning agencies may violate an OFWs security of tenure which an employment contract embodies and actually profit from such violation based on an unconstitutional provision of law. Claudio S. Yap vs. Thenamaris Ships Management and Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. 179532, May 30, 2011. Read more

Share this post: Share Categories:Constitutional Law, Labor LawTags:appeal, equal protection, illegal dismissal, due process, resignation
May 19, 2011Leslie C. DyComments off Here are selected April 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

April 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure

Dismissal; breach of trust and confidence. Petitioner was employed as Assistant Vice-President of the Jewelry Department in respondent bank. His employment terminated on of the ground of willful breach trust and confidence. Jurisprudence provides forof two requisites for dismissal the ground of loss of trust and confidence; (1) the employee concerned must be was holding position trust andon confidence, and of (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss trust and confidence. Losson of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breacha of trust founded clearly established facts. The basis dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond doubt is not necessary. Furthermore, the burden establishing facts and as bases for an employers loss of confidence is on for thethe employer. The court held that the termination of petitioner was without justreasonable cause and therefore illegal. Although the first requisite was of present, the respondent failed to satisfy the second requisite. Respondent bank was not able to show any concrete proof that petitioner had participated in the approval of the questioned accounts. The invocation by respondent of the loss of trust and confidence as ground for petitioners termination has therefore no basis at all. James Ben L. Jerusalem v. Keppel Monte Bank, et al., G.R. No. 169564. April 6, 2011. Breach of Trust andcard Confidence; duties of employee. Petitioner was employed as Assistant Vice-President in respondent His employment was terminated on the ground of willful breach of trust and confidence for endorsing VISA applicants who later turned out to be impostors resulting in financial losses to respondent bank.bank. The court held that petitioner was illegally dismissed. As provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate an employees employment for fraud or willful breach of trust reposed in him. However, in order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be workrelated such of as his would show or the employee concerned to be unfit continue working for the employer. The act in of this betrayal trust, if any, must assigned have been committed by the employee in connection with performance function position. The court found that the to element of work-connection present case of since petitioner under the Jewelry department, and therefore hadthe nothing to do with the approval of VISA Cards, which was under a different department altogether. Jameswas Bennot L. Jerusalem v. Keppel Monte Bank, et was al., G.R. No. 169564. April 6, 2011 . Read more

Share this post: Share Categories:Labor LawTags:certiorari, illegal dismissal, loss of trust and confidence
March 18, 2011Leslie C. DyComments off

February 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure
Here are selected February 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure: Abandonment; elements. Respondents filed an illegal dismissal case against the petitioner-corporation. For its defense, petitioner-corporation alleged that the respondents abandoned their workto and were not dismissed, and thatabsent it sent letters advising respondents to report but they refused. The a Court held that for to exist, it is essential (a) that the employee must have failed report for work or mustof have been without valid or justifiable reason; and for (b)work, that to there must have been clear intention to abandonment sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by must some overt acts. The employer has the burden to show the employees deliberate and unjustified resume his employment without any intention of report returning. Mere was absence is not sufficient. There be an unequivocal intent its on the part of theproof employee toa discontinue his employment. Based on therefusal evidence presented, the reason why respondents failed to for work because petitioner-corporation barred them from entering construction sites. It is settled rule that failure to report for work after a notice to return to work has been served does not necessarily constitute abandonment. The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified. Petitioner-corporation failed to show overt acts committed by respondents from which it may be deduced that they had no more intention to work. Respondents filing of the casev. for illegal dismissal barely fourNo. (4) 182070, days from their alleged abandonment is totally inconsistent with the known concept of what constitutes abandonment. E.G. & I. Construction Corporation and Edsel Galeos Ananias P. Sato, et al., G.R. February 16, 2011. Certification election; petition cancellation of union registration. Respondent union filedof a the petition for certification election. as Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition for certification election alleging the election. pendency of a petition for in cancellation offor the unions registration. DOLE Secretary ruled in favor legitimacy of the respondent a labor andof ordered the immediate conduct of a certification Pending appeal the Court of Appeals, the petition for The cancellation granted and became final and executory. Petitioner argued that organization the agreement cancellation the unions certificate of registration should retroact to the of its issuance. Thus, it claimed that petition forwas certification election and its demand to enter collective bargaining with the petitioner should be dismissed due to is respondents lacktime of legal personality. Thepetition Court ruled that the the unions pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does into not preclude collective bargaining, and that an order toto hold a certification election proper despite the pendency of the for cancellation of the unions registration because at the time the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal personality perform such act absent an order cancelling its registration. Legend International Resorts Limited v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda, G.R. No. 169754, February 23, 2011. Read more

Share this post: Share quitclaim, Categories:Labor Lawredundancy, , Philippines Cases, Philippines - Law Tags:abandonment, burden of proof, certiotari, constructive dismissal, due process, execution, illegal dismissal, jurisdiction, project employee, retrenchment, unfair, union
January 2011 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure
February 18, 2011Leslie C. DyComments off Here are selected January 2011 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Apprenticeship agreement; validity. The apprenticeship agreements did not indicate the or occupation in the of apprentice would be trained; neither was the apprenticeship program approved by the Technical of Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). These were defective as trade they were executed inwhich violation law and the rules. Moreover, with the expiration of the first agreement and the retention the the employer, all intents and purposes, recognized the training and implementing their the acquisition of a regular status. To foist upon them the secondIndustries, apprenticeship agreement for a employees, second which was notto even mentioned the agreement iscompletion a violation of of their the Labor Codes rules and is an employee act manifestly unfair to the employees. Atlanta Inc. and/or Robert Chan vs. skill Aprilito R. Sebolino, et al., G.R. No. in 187320, January itself, 26, 2011. Complaint; reinstatement. Petitioners question the order to reinstate respondents to their former positions, considering that the issue of reinstatement was never brought up before the Court of Appeals and respondents never questioned the award of equitable. separationUnder pay to them. Section 2 can (c), grant Rule 7 of relief the Rules of Court that aand pleading shall specify sought, but may add a the general prayer forthe such further or a other reliefs as may be deemed just and this rule, ain court the warranted byprovides the allegation the evidence even the if it relief is not specifically sought by injured party; inclusion of general prayer may justify the grant of a remedy different from or addition to the specific remedy sought, if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant. The prayer in the complaint for other reliefsfor. equitable justcase, in the premises justifies the grant of for a relief not otherwise specifically prayed for. Therefore, the court may grant warranted by the allegations the proof even if no such relief is prayed In the and instant aside from specific reinstatement, respondents, in their separate complaints, prayed for suchrelief reliefs which are deemed just and and equitable. Prince Transport, Inc. and Mr. Renato Claros vs. Diosdado Garcia, ettheir al., G.R. No.prayer 167291, January 12, 2011. Read more

Share this post: Share jurisdiction, Categories:Labor LawTags:backwages, compensable illness, complaint, constructive dismissal, due process, employee benefits, employer-employee relationship, illegal dismissal, illegal recruitment, NLRC
December 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure
January 24, 2011Leslie C. DyComments off Here are selected December 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Dismissal; due duly process; trial-type hearing not essential . The essence of services due process is an opportunity to be heard as applied to administrative proceedings, anexplanation. opportunity He to explain ones duly side.afforded Records show that Aboc was notified through a letteris asking him toconducted. explain whyAbocs his should not be terminated. In fact, or, he replied to the same by submitting a written was likewise ample opportunity defend himself during a conference contention attended substitute the hearing by the Labor Code bereft of merit. A formal type hearing is not to at all times in all instances essential to due process. It is enoughthat thatthe theconference parties arehe given a fair cannot and reasonable opportunity tomandated explain their respective sidesis of the controversy and to trialpresent supporting evidence onand which a fair and G.R. No. 176460, December 13, 2010 . decision can be based.Antonio A. Aboc vs. Metropolitan Bank And Trust Company / Metropolitan Bank And Trust Company vs. Antonio A. Aboc, G.R. Nos. 170542-43 Dismissal; due process; trial-type hearing is not essential . In dismissal cases, the essence of due process is a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side. A formal or trial hearingagainst is not at all as times and in his all instances essential.he Neither is it necessary that the witnesses be him cross-examined. In the case, there why was he a should proceeding where the respondent was apprised of type the charges him well as of rights. Thereafter, notified of the formal charges against and required toinstant explain in writing not be dismissed for serious misconduct. A formal hearing was conducted and subsequently, respondent receivedwas a Notice of Termination informing him that after a was careful evaluation, he was found liable as charged and dismissed from the service due toG gross misconduct. Clearly, respondent Telephone Company, vs. Eusebio M. Honrado, .R. No . 189366, December 8, 2010. was afforded ample opportunity to air his side and defend himself. Hence, there was due process. Philippine Long Distance Dismissal; due process . Respondent harps on the fact that his dismissal was preconceived because there was already a decision to terminate him even before he was given the show cause memorandum. Contrary to respondents allegations, he was given more than enough opportunity to defend himself. The audit committees conclusion to dismiss respondent from the service was merely recommendatory. It was not conclusive upon the petitioner company. This is precisely the reason why the petitioner still conducted further investigations. To reiterate, respondent was properly of the the opportunity charges and had opportunity to rebut accusations and present his version. was not denied for he was adequately heard as the very essence of dueinformed process is to be every heard. Equitable PCI the Bank (Now Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc.), Respondent vs. Castor A. Dompor, G.R. due Nos.process 163293of & law 163297, December 8, 2010. Read more

Share this post: Share Categories:Labor Law, Philippines - Cases, Philippines - LawTags:certiorari, due process, evidence, illegal dismissal, jurisdiction, labor-only contracting, loss of trust and confidence, reinstatement
November 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure
December 13, 2010Leslie C. DyComments off Here are selected November 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Appeal; of date of filing. Under as Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the or filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and all other papers with the court/tribunal made bydetermination registered mail, the date of on mailing, shown the post office stamp on thewhere envelope the registry shall be considered as the of filing. Thus, the date of filing is one determinable from the two is sources: from the post office stamp the envelope or by from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to receipt, prove the timeliness of theon filing ofdate the pleadings. If the date stamped is earlier than other, the former may be accepted as the date of filing. In this case, to prove that it mailed notice of appeal and appeal memorandum October 27, 1997, instead of October 28,on 1997, as shown by the stamped date on the envelope, petitioner presented Registry Receipt No. 34581 bearing the the earlier date. Government Service Insurance System vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Dionisio Banlasan, et al., G.R . No. 180045, November 17, 2010 . Appeal; filedassailed out of time; exceptional cases. An appeal must be perfected within the or legal reglementary period. This final is not only mandatory, butentertain also jurisdictional. Failure to perfect the appeal on time renders the decision final executory and deprives the appellate court or statutory body of appeal the to alter judgment, much less thejustice appeal. However, in exceptional cases, a belated appeal may beand given due if and greater injustice will be visited upon the party should the beauthority denied. This is tothe serve the greater principles ofone substantial and equity.have Technical are not binding in labor are notcourse to be applied strictly if the result wouldRelations be detrimental to the (NLRC), working man. In the instant case, even if .the appeal was filed day late, the same should been rules entertained by the NLRC. Gcases overnment Service Insurance System vs. National Labor Commission Dionisio Banlasan, et al., G .R. No 180045, November 17, 2010 . Compensable illness; work-relatedness. Granting arguendo that petitioners illness was not pre-existing, he he stillwas hadcontracted to show that his illness not onlyto occurred during the termhowever. of his contract butexact also that it resulted from a work-related injury or illness, or at the very least aggravated by the conditions of the work for which for. Petitioner failed discharge this burden, That the and definite cause of petitioners illness is unknown cannot be used to justify grant of disability benefits, absent proof that there is any reasonable connection between work actually performed by petitioner and his illness. Jerry M. Francisco, vs. Bahia Shipping Services, Inc. and/or Cynthia C. Mendoza, and Fred Olsen Cruise Lines, Ltd., G.R. No. 190545, November 22, 2010. Dismissal; illegal strike; distinction between union officers and mere members. liabilities of individuals who participate in officer an illegal strike must be determined Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code which makes a distinction between union officers and mere members. The law grants The the employer the option of declaring a union who knowingly participated in under an illegal as having lost his employment. However, a worker participating in an illegal strike may not be terminated from employment if he does not commit illegal acts during a strike. Hence, with respect tostrike respondents who are union officers, their termination bymerely petitioners is valid. Being fullywho aware that the proceedings before the Secretary of Labor were still pending in fact they filed a motion reconsideration, they cannot invoke good faith as a defense. the rest of theand individual respondents are union members, they be terminated for mere participation in as the illegal strike. Solid Bank for Corp. Ernesto U. Gamier, et al. and Solid Bank Corp., et al. vs. For Solid Bank Union its Dismissed Officers and Members, et al. G.R . Nocannot . 159460 and G.R. No. 159461, November 15, 2010 . Read more Here are selected October 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippine on labor law and procedure: Compensable illness. Respondent is entitled to Employment sickness wages because the shooting pain in his right foot is an injury which he suffered during the course of his employment. This is in consonance with the Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the ofmaximum Filipino Seafarers On Board Ocean-Going Vessels of violated the Department of Labor and Employment. Applying the said provisions of this standard contract, respondent is entitled to receive sickness wages covering the periodrespondent of 120 days. Moreover, petitioners the contract when failed provide continuous for respondent in accordance with the expenses. recommendation of their company physician. Because of this failure, was forced to seek immediate medical attention at it his own to expense. Thus, he is treatment also entitled to reimbursement of his medical Varorient Shipping Co., Inc., et al. vs. Gil Flores, G.R . No. 161934, October 6, 2010 Compensable illness. Forand an injury or illness to be duly compensated under the terms of employment the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), there must be a showing that the injury or illness the ensuing disability occurred during the effectivity of the contract. Moreover, all of these conditions must be satisfied 1.) The seafarers work must involve the risks described in the POEA-SEC; 2.) The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarers exposure to the described risks; 3.) The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary to contract it; in and 4.) ThereIn was norespondent notorious negligence on he the part of depressed the seafarer. withverbal respect to mental diseases, the POEA-SEC requires that it musthe befailed due to injuryproof to the head which did not occur this case. fact, claimed became dueSpecifically, to the frequent abuse he received from German superiors. totraumatic show concrete that, if indeed he was subjected to abuse, it directly resulted in his that depression. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., Global Navigation, Ltd. vs..his Silvino A. Nazam, G.RHowever, . No. 190804. October 11, 2010 . Constructive dismissal; transfer. It is management prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one or office or area ofof operation to another. However, thebenefits. employerShould must show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee, or that it dismissal. does not involve a demotion inDel rank a diminution his salaries, privileges and designation other the employer failthe to overcome this burden, the employees transfer shall be tantamount to constructive In the instant case, Villars demotion is readily apparent in his new as a mere Staff Assistant to Corporate Purchasing and Materials Control Manager from being Transportation Services Manager. The two posts are not ofcould the same weight in terms of duties and responsibilities. Moreover, while Del Villars transfer did not result reduction of his salary, there was a diminution in his benefits because as a mere Staff Assistant, he no longer enjoy the Philippines, use of a company car, gasoline and annual foreign travel, which in hethe previously enjoyed as Transportation Services Manager. Thus, Del Villar was clearly constructively dismissed. Coca Cola Bottlers Inc. vs. Angel U. Delallowance, Villar, G.R. No. 163091, October 6, 2010. Dismissal; closure of business. Petitioner terminated the employment of respondents on the ground ofproscribed closure or by cessation of operation of the establishment which by is an authorized cause for termination under Article 283 of the Labor Code. While it there is true thatin a fact, change of ownership in a business concern is not law, the sale or disposition must be motivated good faith as a condition for exemption from liability. In the instant case, however, was, no change of ownership. Petitioner did not present any documentary evidence to support its claim that it sold the same to ALPS Transportation. On the contrary, it operates under the same name, franchises and routes under thePeafrancia same circumstances as before the alleged sale. noP. actual sale transpired and, such, there is no closure or cessation ofcontinuously business that can serve as an authorized cause for the dismissal of and respondents. Tours and Travel Transport, Inc. vs. Thus, Joselito Sarmiento and Ricardo S.as Catimbang, G.R. No. 178397, October 20, 2010. Read more

Share this post: Share Categories:Labor LawTags:appeal, backwages, damages, employer -employee relationship, evidence, illegal dismissal,jurisdiction, labor-only contracting, loss of confidence, negligence, probationary employment,redundancy, reinstatement, retirement, separa, serious misconduct
September 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure
October 13, 2010Leslie C. DyComments off

Here are selected September 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Labor Law Compensable illness. The provision states: If a seafarer/officer, due to to work no fault of his own, suffers permanent as a Company result of an accident while serving on board or while traveling has to or fromdefined the vessel onfortuitous Companys business orCBA due to or marine peril, and as a result, his ability is permanently reduced, totallywholly ordisability partially, the shall pay him a disability compensation. Accident A circumstance, event, happening, an event happening any agency, or if happening or partly through human agency, an event which thethe circumstances is been unusual and as: unexpected by the injury person to whom it happens. The Court that without the on human the back of respondent was not an accident, an injury sustained by respondent fromunder carrying heavy by basketful of firehis hydrant caps. The cannot be said to be the result of holds an accident orsnap fortuitous event. It a resulted from the performance ofbut a duty. Although the 50% disability of respondent was but not permanently caused anunfit accident, disability is still compensable under the CBA provision: A seafarer/officer who is disabled as result of any injury, and who is assessed as less than permanently disabled, for further service at sea in any capacity, shall also be entitled to a 100% compensation. NFD International Manning Agents, Inc./Barber Ship Management Ltd. vs. Esmeraldo C. Illescas, G.R. No. 183054, September 29, 2010. Dismissal; due of process. SPO2 Roaquin isin entitled to any reinstatement since that he was dismissed from the service without administrative duestill process. No one ever filed an administrative action against him in connection with thethe crime which he was charged court. At rate, assuming someone filed an does administrative charge against Roaquin, the him law required the PNP to give him notice of such charge and the right to answer same. The PNP gave him he no was chance to show why he should not be discharged nor the record show from that the investigated or conducted summary to determine his liability in his connection with the murder of which charged in court. While the PNP may have validly suspended Roaquin the PNP service pending the adjudication of a the criminalproceeding case against him, he is entitled, after acquittal, to reinstatement payment of the salaries, allowances, SPO2 Reynaldo L. Roaquin,and G.R. No. 159588, September 15, 2010. and other benefits withheld from him by reason of his discharge from the service. P/Chief Superintendent Roberto L. Calinisan, etc., et al. vs. Read more

Share this post: Share

Categories:Labor LawTags:appeal, backwages, certiorari, compensable illness, diminution of benefits, due process, illegal dismissal, illegal strike, jurisdiction, prescription, reinstatement, retrenchment, security of tenure

August 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure
September 16, 2010Leslie C. DyComments off Here are selected August 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure: Labor Law Dismissal; abandonment. Time and again, case, the Supreme Court has held that abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a employment. complaint for Moreover, illegal dismissal, more so if the is accompanied by a prayer for reinstatement. In the present however, petitioner filed his complaint more than one year after histhe alleged termination from petitioner did asksame for reinstatement in the complaint which he filled up filedElpidio with the NLRC. The prayer for reinstatement is made only Position Paper that was 3, later prepared by his counsel. This is not an indication that petitioner never had form, the intention orpersonally desire to return to and his job. Calipay vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et in al., G.R. No. 166411, August 2010. Dismissal; burden of proof. In termination cases, the employer has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence that the dismissal is for just cause. If the employer fails to discharge the burden of proof, the dismissal is deemed illegal. Inwas the found present BCPI failed to discharge itsArbiter burdenand when itNLRC. failed to present anyvs. evidence of the alleged fistfight, aside from a single statement, which was refuted by statements made by other witnesses and tocase, be incredible by both the Labor the Alex Gurango Best Chemicals and Plastic, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 174593, August 25, 2010. Dismissal; burden was of proof. The lawand, mandates that illegal. the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests with do the employer. Failure to discharge this evidentiaryemployees. burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal not justified therefore, Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of employers not provide for legal justification for dismissing In Ramil, case ofG.R. doubt, such cases should resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution. Century Canning Corporation, Ricardo T. Po, Jr., et al. vs. Vicente Randy R. No. 171630, August 8, be 2010. Dismissal; due process. In termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of there the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2)hearing the second informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual was conducted. Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., et al. vs. Ricardo P. Albayda, Jr., G.R. No. 172724, August 23, 2010. Read more

Share this post: Share merger, Categories:Labor Law Tags:abandonment, backwages, breach of , trust , burden of proof , damages, employee benefits , illegal dismissal , illegal strike , laboronly contracting , loss of trust and confidence, negligence,NLRC, probationary employment project employee , rehabilitation, reinstatement, retirement, security of tenure , serious misconduct , union
July 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure
August 27, 2010Leslie C. DyComments off Here are selected July 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Labor Law Assumption ofgrounds jurisdiction by of Labor; authority to decide on legality of dismissals arising from strike. assumption of jurisdiction powers granted to the Labor Secretary under Article 263(g) is not limited toassume the cited inSecretary the notice of strike orof lockout that may have the strike lockout; nor is The it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout in thearose meanwhile have or taken place. As the term jurisdiction the intent the jurisdiction. law is to give the preceded Labor Secretary full or authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise tothat or which out of may the strike lockout, including cases over which the connotes, labor arbiter has exclusive In the present case,from what the Labor Secretary refused to rule upon was the Secretary, dismissal from employment of employees whoissuance violated of the return to work order and participated inthe illegal acts during a strike. This was an issue that arose the strike and was, in fact, submitted to the Labor through the unions motion for the an order for immediate reinstatement of dismissed officers and the companys opposition to the motion. The dismissal issue was properly brought before the Labor Secretary and he was mistaken in ruling that the matter is legally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter to decide. Bagong Pagkakaisa ng et Manggagawa ng Triumph International, Manggagawa ng Triumph International, al., G.R. No. 167401, July 5, 2010. et al. vs. Secretary of Department of Labor and Employment, et al./Triumph International (phils.), Inc. vs. Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Bargaining deadlock; award; findings of Secretary of Labor. Unless there is a clear as showing of grave abuse of examination discretion, the cannot, and interfere with the expertise oferror, the Secretary ofany Labor. The award of granted by the Labor Secretary resolving the bargaining deadlock, drawn they were from a close of Court the submissions ofwill the not, parties, not indicate any legal much less grave abuse discretion, and should not be in disturbed. Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa Triumph International, et al. vs. Secretary of Department of Labor do and Employment, et al./Triumph International (phils.), Inc. vs. Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International, et al., G.R. No.ng 167401, July 5, 2010. Dismissal of employees; just cause. Theft committed by an employee is a valid reason for his dismissal by the employer. Although as a rule this Court leans over backwards to help workers and employees continue with their employment to mitigate the penalties imposed on them, acts of dishonesty in the handling of company property, petitioners income in this case, are a different matter. Maribago Bluewater Beach Resort, Inc. vs. Nito Dual,or G.R. No. 180660, July 20, 2010. Dismissal of employees; requirements. The validity of an employees dismissal from service hinges on the satisfaction of the This two substantive requirements for asecond lawful ,termination. These are, whether the employee was accorded due process components of which are the opportunity to be heard and to defendSign himself. is and the procedural aspect. And whether the dismissal isfirst for ,any causes provided in the Labor Code of the the basic Philippines. This constitutes the substantive aspect. Erector Advertising Group, Inc. Arch Jimy C. Amoroto vs. Expedito Cloma, G.R. No. 167218, Julyof 2,the 2010. Read more

Share this post: Share Categories:Labor Law Tags:due process , employee benefits, employer-employee relationship, illegal dismissal, intra-union dispute, jurisdiction, labor-only contracting, NLRC, redundancy, retirement, retrenchment,suspension
June 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure
July 16, 2010Leslie C. DyComments off Here are selected June 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Labor Law Acceptance of Benefits, render moot claim under other policies. As inArticle the case of Capili v. National Labor Relations Commission [273 SCRA 576] , a claim for benefit under the companys retirement moot when the employee accepts retirement benefits on the basis 287 of the Code. Yusons acceptance of her benefits through a compromise agreement entered into plan with becomes her employer, she is deemed to have opted to retire under Article 287.of Korean Air Co., Ltd Labor and Suk KyooBy Kim v. Adelina A.S. Yuson, Gretirement .R. No. 170369, June 16, 2010 . Approval for companys early retirement management prerogative. Approval of applications for the early retirement program (ERP) is within the employers management The The exercise of management prerogative is clearly valid as long program; as it is not done on in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive, or wanton manner. In the present case, the Court sees no bad faith on the part prerogatives. of the employer. 21 did August 2001 memorandum states that petitioner, its discretion, was offering ERP to its employees. The memorandum also states that the reason for the ERP was to prevent further losses. Petitioner not abuse Korean its discretion when it excluded respondent in the A.S. ERP Yuson, because the latter is already about to retire. To allow respondent to avail of the ERP would have been contrary to the purpose of the program. Air Co., Ltd and Suk Kyoo Kim v. Adelina G. R. No . 170369, June 16, 2010 . Constructive dismissal; definition; transfer as management prerogative . Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, or when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay. It exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment. Here, there wasany no diminution of petitioners salary and benefits. There was no evidence prerogative that she was harassed or discriminated upon, or that made this it difficult to beneficial continue with her other duties. Absent evidence bad faith, it is within theother exercise of respondents management to transfer some of petitioners duties, if, respondents in their judgment, would for be her more to the corporation. Estrella Velasco of vs. Transit Automotive Supply, Inc. and Antonio de Dios, G.R. No. 171327, June 18, 2010. Constructive dismissal; off-detailing; resignation; notice requirement . The company evidently placed beyond petitioner on floatingtime. statusIn after being relieved of her position. But, as the Court has than repeatedly ruled,as such act of off-detailing does not amount to a dismissal so long as the floating status does not continue a reasonable this case, the employees floating status ran up to more six months of not August 16, legally 2002. For this reason, the company may be considered to have constructively dismissed the employee from work as of that date. Hence, petitioners purported resignation on October 15, 2002 could have been possible. The company claims that it gaveemployment. petitioner notices on August 23,cannot 2002 and September 2, place 2002,of asking her to required explain her failure to report for work andsix informing her that the company would treat such failure as at lack of interest in her continued But these notices possibly take the the notices by law as they came more than months after the company placed her on floating status, which time, the employee is already deemed to have been constructively dismissed her from work. Elsa S. Mali-on v. Equitable General Services Inc., G.R. No. 185269, June 29, 2010. Read more

Share this post: Share Categories:Labor Law Tags:burden res of proof , constructive dismissal, employee benefits, employer-employee relationship,evidence, forum shopping, illegal dismissal, judgment, jurisdiction, loss of trust and confidence,pleading, prescription, judicata , waiver
May 2010 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law and Procedure
June 22, 2010Leslie C. DyComments off Here are selected May 2010 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on labor law and procedure:

Labor law Illegal dismissal; backwages. The basis for the payment of backwages is represent different from that for the award of separation pay. Separation pay is granted where reinstatement is no longer advisable because of strained relations between the employee and the employer. Backwages compensation that should have been earned but were not collected because of the unjust dismissal. The basis for computing backwages is usually the length of the employees service while that for separation pay is the actual period when the employee was unlawfully prevented from working. As to how both awards should for be computed, Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases [G.R. No. 178524, January 2009] instructs that cause the award of separation pay is inconsistent a finding that there was no illegal dismissal, under Article 279 thereof. of the Labor Code and as dismissed held in Philippines a catena of cases, an employee who is30, dismissed without just and without due process isare entitled to with backwages and reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu Thus, an illegally employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided separate and distinct. Golden Ace Builders and Arnold U. Azur vs. Jose A. Talde, G.R. No. 187200, May 5, 2010. Illegal dismissal; doctrine of hand, strained relations. Under the doctrine of strained relations , the payment of separation pay is considered On an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On one such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust. Strained relations be demonstrated as a fact, however, to be adequately supported by evidence substantial evidence to show that the relationship between the employer and the employee is indeed strained asmust a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy. Read more

October 2009 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Labor Law

November 20, 2009Hector M. de Leon Jr Here are selected October 2009 Supreme Court decisions on labor law: Dismissal; abandonment. To constitute abandonment, there must be a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue ones employment without any intention of returning. Twodeterminative elements must concur: failure to report forovert work or absence without valid or justifiable reason, (2) clear toand sever the employer-employee relationship, with the element as theany more factor and(1) being manifested by some acts. It is the employer who has the burden of and proof to a show aintention deliberate unjustified refusal of the employee to resume hissecond employment without intention of returning. In the instant case, petitioners failed to prove that it however, was Bolanos who refused to report for work despite being askedas to they return toself-serving. work. Petitioners merely presented the affidavits of the officers of Henlin Panay narrating their version of the facts. These affidavits, are not or only insufficient but also undeserving of credit are Petitioners failed to present memoranda or show-cause letters served on Bolanos at her last known address requiring her to report for work to explain her absence, with a warning that her failure to report would be construed as abandonment of work. Also, if indeed Bolanos abandoned her work, petitioners should have served her a notice of termination as required by law. Petitioners failure to comply with said requirement bolsters Bolanoss claim that she did not abandon her work but was dismissed. Moreover, if Bolanos had indeed forsaken her job, she would not have bothered to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. It is well settled that the filing by an employee of a complaint for illegal dismissal is proof of her desire to work, thus negating the Bolanos, Gto .R.return No. 180718, October 23, 2009 . employers charge of abandonment. Henlin Panay Company and/or Edwin Francisco/Angel Lazaro III vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Nory A. Dismissal; attorneys fees. It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or when the employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith or where an employee was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests by reason of the 7, unjustified actsof of his employer, Implementing Rules; and paragraph Article 2208 the Civil Code. he is entitled to an award of attorneys fees. This award is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code, Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Moreover, in cases for lawful recovery of wages, thepaid award of attorneys feesRepublic is proper and thereMajor need Cinema, not be any showing that the acted maliciously or in bad it withheld wages. be a showing that the wages were not accordingly. Baron Theatrical et al. vs. Normita P. employer Peralta and Edilberto H. Aguilar, G.R.faith No. when 170525, October the 2, 2009 . There need only Dismissal; burden of proof. It is a basic principle that illegal dismissal the burden by of an proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee is for a a deliberate just cause and and unjustified failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal is not justified. Inin addition, in returning. claimscases, of abandonment employee, the settled rule is that the employer bears the burden of showing refusal by the employee to resume his employment without any intention of Moreover, in evaluating a failure charge of abandonment, the jurisprudential rule isor that abandonment isand a matter of intention that cannot be lightly presumed from equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the to report for work or absence without valid justifiable reason, (2) a clear intent, manifested through overt acts, to sever the employer-employee relationship. In the present case, petitioner Pascual consistently denies that Aguilar was terminated from his employment and that, instead, he abandoned his work and never returned after his request for salary increase was rejected. to However, denial, in thisand case, does not suffice; it of should be coupled with evidence to support it. In the instant case, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that petitioners failed to adduce evidence prove abandonment rebut Aguilars claim dismissal. Contrary to petitioners asseveration that Aguilar is guilty of abandoning his the Court finds no error in the finding the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the CA, that there was no clear intention on Aguilars part to severpetitioners the employer-employee relationship. Considering that intention is job, a mental state, petitioners must show thatof respondent Aguilars overt acts point regard, failed. Baron Republic Theatrical Major Cinema, et al. vs. Normita P. Peralta and Edilberto H. Aguilar, G.R. No. 170525, October 2, 2009 . unerringly to his intent not to work anymore. In this Dismissal; was illegal.burden of proof. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for a just and valid cause and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal Following principle, is incumbent upon the respondents to prove by substantial evidence that petitioner abandoned her job. to For abandonment to exist, it must be shown that (1) the employee has failed to report for this work or must it have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) that there must have been a clear intention sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by some overt acts. Respondents failed to discharge this burden. Mere was absence to of the petitioner is not sufficient to establish the allegation of abandonment. The prolonged absence of petitioner was not without justifiable because it was that her failure to report for work she suffered in the course of her employment and with sufficient notice to respondents. Petitioner also presented herself forreason work on the date established stated in the medical certificate which stated that due she is fit toinjury resume work. Above all, the intention to sever the employer-employee relationship was notfailing duly established by respondents. The prior submission of a medical certificate that petitioner is fitwhile to resume negates the claim a of respondents that the is former demanded for separation pay on account of her health.that Certainly, petitioner cannot demand forto separation benefits on the ground of illness at thework same time employ. presenting certification that she fit to work. Respondents could have denied petitioners instance and ordered her to return work had it not been intention to sever petitioner from their Hence, we find the allegation that petitioner presented herself for work but wasdemand refused at by respondents more credible. Concepcion Faeldonia vs. Tong Yaktheir Groceries, et al., G.R. No . 182499, October 2, 2009. Dismissal; burden of proof. In an unlawful dismissal case, the employer has the burden of proving the lawful cause sustaining the dismissal of the employee. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence thatlosses, the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. Apart from its self-serving allegations, Metro of failed to prove that it sustained serious business To justify the employer must prove serious business and not just any kind orRogelio amount of loss. Metro have produced its books accounts, profit and loss statements, and evenlosses. its accountant toretrenchment, competently amplify its financial position. Metro Construction, Inc. and Dr. John Lai vs. Aman, G. R. No.should 168324, October 12, 2009 . Dismissal; loss of confidence. Espaderos position as a cashier is one that requires a high degree of trust and confidence, and that her infraction reasonably taints such trust and confidence reposed upon her by her employer. A position of trust and confidence has been defined as one where a person is entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the employers property and/or funds. One position is thatbeen of a cashier. cashier is a highly sensitive position which requires absolute and honesty onupheld the part of validity the employee. It is for this the despite Court has dismissal ofsuch cashiers who have found toA have breached the trust and she confidence of their employers. In trust one case, the Court the of the dismissal of areason school that cashier hersustained 19 years the of service after evidence showed that there was a discrepancy in the amount was entrusted to deposit with a bank. The rule, therefore, is that if there is the sufficient evidence to show to that the employee occupying a position of trust and confidence is guilty of a breach of trust, or that his employer has ample reason to distrust him, the labor tribunal cannot justly deny employer the authority dismiss such employee. In instant case, petitioners cannot be her faulted for was losing their trust Espadero. As an employee occupying a job which requires utmost fidelity to her employers, she failed to report her immediate supervisor thethe tampering of her time card. Whether failure deliberate or in due to sheer negligence, and whether discovered Espadero was was later not in cahoots with a not co-worker, the fact remains that to the tampering was not promptly and could, very likely, not have been known by trust petitioners, or, at least, could have at aor much period, if it had reported Espaderos supervisor to the personnel manager. reported Petitioners, therefore, cannot be blamed for losing their in Espadero. Eats-Cetera Food been Services Outlet and/or Serafin Remirez vs. Myrna B. been Letran, et al., by G.R . No. 179507, October 2, 2009 . Dismisssal; nominal damages . Where an employee was terminated for cause, but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the employee is entitled to the payment of nominal damages pursuant to our ruling in found Agabon v.dismissal National Labor Relations Commission and Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot. was duly established. However, we held the employer liable, because procedural due process In Agabon, we the of the employees therein to be valid and for a just cause, since abandonment was not observed. We orderedcause the employer to pay, in of lieu ofLabor backwages, indemnity in the form ofwas nominal damage. The Agabon ruling wasserious qualified in Jakalosses which at declared the dismissal of respondents the employees valid as it was due to an authorized under Article 283 the Code, i.e., retrenchment, as it proven that Jaka was suffering from business the time it terminated employment. However, Jaka failed to comply with the notice requirement under the same rule. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff that has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for anythe loss suffered by him. Considering the circumstances in this case, we find no error committed by the CA in fixing the award of nominal damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each respondent as indemnity for violation of the latters statutory rights. Petitioners reliance on Viernes v. was National Labor Relations to support its claim for and the reduction of the award of nominal damages isinclusive misplaced. The factual and circumstances are different. Viernes is an illegal dismissal case, since there no authorized cause Commission for the dismissal of thethe employees; employer was to pay backwages of allowances other benefits, computed from the time the employee. compensation wascase, withheld up to the actual reinstatement. In to addition, since dismissal wasthe done due ordered process, the nominal damages only P2,590.00 equivalent to one-month the In this the dismissal was valid, it was October due an cause, but without the without observance of procedural due process, and awarded the only was award given was nominal damages. Celebes salary Japan of Foods Corp. (etc.) vs. Susan Yermo, et al., G.R . No. as 175855, 2,authorized 2009. Dismissal; serious misconduct. An employee who fails to account for and deliver entrusted is. liable for misappropriating same and is consequently guilty of serious misconduct. Petitioner therefore validly dismissed respondent. Superlines Transportation Company, Inc.the vs. funds Eduardo Pinera,to G.him R. No 188742, October 13, 2009the . Employee benefits; bereavement leave . Bereavement leave and other death benefits are granted to an of employee to give aid who, to, and possible, lessen the grief of, the said employee and hisduring family delivery, who suffered the of a loved one. It cannot be said parents grief and sense of loss arising from the death their unborn child, in if this case, had a gestational life of 38-39 weeks but died is any less loss than that of parents whose child was that bornthe alive but died subsequently. Being for the benefit of the of employee, CBAinterpretation provisions onof bereavement leave and other death benefits should be interpreted liberally to give life to the intentions thereof. Time and again, the Labor Code is specific in enunciating that in case doubt in the any law or provision affecting labor, such should be interpreted in favor of labor. In the same way, the CBA and CBA provisions should be interpreted in favor of labor. Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation vs. Hon. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Allan S. Montano, et al., G.R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009. Employee benefits; disability benefits. This Court reiterates its order for petitioner to pay respondent partial disability benefits the basis of Section partial 2 of Republic Act No. 8291. Government Service Insurance System vs. Jaime Ibarra, Gpermanent .R. No. 172925, October 30, 2009. for the maximum period of twenty-five (25) months, computed on Employee benefits; retirement. The age of retirement is primarily determined by the existing agreement or employment contract. In the absence of such agreement, the retirement age shall be fixed by law. Under the aforecited law, the mandated compulsory retirement age is set at 65 years, while the minimum age for optional retirement is set at 60 years. Under Paragraph B of the retirement plan, a shipboard employee, upon his written request, may retire from service if he has reached the eligibility age of 60 years. In this case, the option to retire lies with the employee. Records that respondent was only 41 years old when he for optional retirement, which was 19 years short of the required eligibility age. Thus, he cannot claim optional retirement benefits as a matter of right. show Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Ferrer D. Antonio, G.applied R. No. 171587, October 13, 2009 . Employees; fixed contracts. Respondent a regular invalid. employee of SMC. Consequently, the employment contract with a fixed period which SMC had respondent execute was meant only to circumvent respondents rightterm to security of tenure and is,is therefore, While this CourtIn recognizes the case validity of fixed-term employment contracts, it has consistently held that thisof is employment the exception rather than the general rule. if Verily, a fixed-term contract is valid only under certain circumstances. the oft-cited of Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, this Court made it clear that a contract a be fixed term, even clear as regards the existence of issued a period, is invalid if it can be shown that the same wascircumstances, executed with the circumventing an employees right to security of tenure, andstipulating should thus Moreover, same case, this Court a stern admonition that where from the it is intention apparent of that the period was imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by ignored. the employee, then in it that should be struck down as being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. Since respondent was already a regular employee months before the execution of the with a Fixed Period contract, its execution was the merely a ploy SMCs part to deprive respondent of his tenurial security. Hence, no valid fixed-term contract wasinterest executed. The employment status of Employment a yield person defined and prescribed by law not by statutes what parties sayon it should be. Equally important to parties consider is not that a contract of employment is impressed with public such that labor contracts must to is the common good. Provisions of and applicable are deemed written into the contract, and the are at liberty to insulate October 2, 2009. themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other. San Miguel Corporation vs. Eduardo L. Teodosio, G.R. No. 163033, Employees; types of regular employees. There there are two kinds of year regular employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which they are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which are employed. Simply stated, regular employees are classified into (1) regular employees by nature of work and (2) regular employees by years ofrefers service. former referswho to those who perform a regardless particular activity which is necessary orleast desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless their length ofif service; while the latter to The those employees haveemployees been performing the job, of the nature thereof, for at a year. If the employee has been performing for at leastof one even the performance sufficient evidence of the necessity, if the not job indispensability, of year, that activity to the business. is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as Based on the Although circumstances surrounding respondents employment by SMC, this Court is convinced that he has attained the status of a regular employee long before he executed the employment contract with a fixed period. respondent was initially hired by SMC as a casual employee, respondent has attained the status of a regular employee. Respondent was initially hired by SMC on September 5, 1991 until March 1992. at He was rehired for the same position in April for five to six months. After been three in weeks, he was as atwenty-three forklift operator and he continued to work as such until August 1993. Thus, the time he signed the Employment with a 1992 Fixed which Periodlasted contract, respondent had already the employ ofagain SMC rehired for at least (23) months.

The Labor Code provides that a casual employee can beImplementing considered asRules a regular employee if said casual employee has defines rendered atterm leastat one year of service regardless of the fact thatwithin such service may whether be continuous or broken. Section 3, Rule the V, Book II of the and Regulations of the Labor Code clearly the least one year of service to mean service 12 months, continuous or broken, in reckoned from date the employee started working, including authorized absences and paid regular holidays, unless the working days in the establishment, a matter of practice or policy, or as provided the employment contract, is less than 12 months, in which case said period shall be considered oneas year. If the employee has performing job for atas least even the performance is not continuous merely intermittent, law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance sufficient evidence of thebeen necessity, if not the indispensability, of one thatyear, activity to if the business of the employer. Sanor Miguel Corporation vs. the Eduardo L. Teodosio, G.R. No . 163033, October 2, 2009 . Employees; while regular employees . salaries, To reiterate, while respondent and SSCP no longer had any legal relationship with the termination of respondent the Agreement, petitioners remained at situation. their postIt securing the premises of respondent receiving their allegedly from SSCP. Clearly, such a situation makes no sense, and the denials proffered by do not shed any light to the is but reasonable to conclude that, with the behest and, presumably, directive of respondent, petitioners continued with their services. Evidently, such are indicia of control that respondent exercised over petitioners. Such power of control hascontinue been explained as duties, the right to control not only the end to be achieved but the over means to be used in existence reaching such end. With the conclusion that respondent directed petitioners to remain at their posts and withTelephone their it is clear that respondent exercised the power of also control them; thus, the of an employer-employee relationship. Raul G. Locsin and Eddie B. Tomaquin vs. Philippine Long Distance Company, G . R . No . 185251, October 2, 2009 . Retrenchment; elements . In order for a retrenchment scheme to be valid, all of the following elements under Article 283 of the Labor Code must concur or be present. In the absence of one element, the retrenchment scheme becomes an irregular exercise of management prerogative. The employers obligation toproviding exhaust all other meansto tolabor, avoidthe further losses without retrenching its employees is a component of the first element as enumerated above. To impart operational meaning to the constitutional policy of full protection employers prerogative to bring down (FASAP) labor costs retrenching must be exercised essentially as a measure of last resort, after less drastic means have been tried and found wanting. Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines vs. by Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 178083, October 2, 2009. Union; registration The charge that a labor organization committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing its registration is a serious charge and deserves close scrutiny. It the is serious because once such charge is proved, the labor.union acquires none of the rights accorded to registered organizations. Consequently, charges of this nature should be clearly established by evidence and surrounding circumstances. Here, the discrepancies in the number of union members or employees stated in the various supporting documents that respondent PIGLAS union submitted to such labor authorities can be explained. it appears in the minutes of the December 10, The 2003 organizational meeting that only 90a.m. employees responded to the roll call at the beginning, it cannot belocked assumed that could not grow to 128 While as reflected on the signature sheet for attendance. meeting lasted 12 hours from 11:00 to 11:00 p.m. There is no evidence that the meeting hall was up to excludenumber late attendees. There who is also nothing essentially or irregular about the that only members ratified therefrain unions constitution by-laws when or 128 attendance sheet. It cannot be assumed that all those attended approved of mysterious the constitution and by-laws. Anyfact member had 127 the right to hold out and from ratifyingand those documents to signed simply the ignore the process. At any rate, the Laborto Code and its implementing rules do not require that the number of members appearing on the documents in question should dovetail. For as long as the documents and(Owned signatures are shown be genuine and regular and the constitution by-laws democratically the union deemed to have complied withcompletely registration The Heritage Hotel Manila and operated by Grand Plaza Hotel Corp.) vs. Pinag-isang galing and and lakas ng mga manggagawa ratified, sa Heritage Manilais (Piglas-Heritage), G.R. No. 177024, October requirements. 30, 2009.