Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Labor Midterms Magic Notes

Labor Midterms Magic Notes

Ratings: (0)|Views: 868|Likes:
Published by cmv mendoza

More info:

Published by: cmv mendoza on Jul 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





PART 1: INTRODUCTORY MATERIALSSection 1: Labor Law in General
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 
. Continued operation; work.2. The labor and skill of one man is frequentlyused in a partnership, and valued as equal to thecapital of another.3. When business has been done for another, andsuit is brought to recover a just reward, there isgenerally contained in the declaration, a countfor work and labor.4. Where penitentiaries exist, persons who havecommitted crimes are condemned to beimprisoned therein at labor.1.02 LAW CLASSIFICATION – LABOR STANDARDS,LABOR RELATIONS, AND WELFARE LAWSBooks and Titles LABOR CODE OF THEPHILIPPINES PD 442 as amendedLabor Standards
Penaranda v Baganga Plywood Corp
Article 82 of the Labor Code exemptsmanagerial employees from the coverage of labor standards. Labor standards provide theworking conditions of employees, includingentitlement to overtime pay and premium pay forworking on rest days.
Batong Buhay Goldmines Inc v dela Serna
Labor standards refers to the minimumrequirements prescribed by existing laws, rulesand regulations relating to wages, hours of work,cost of living allowance and other monetary andwelfare benefits, including occupational, safetyand health standards. Labor standards cases aregoverned by Article 128(b) of the Labor Code. The subject labor standards case of thepetition arose from the visitorial and enforcementpowers by the Regional Director of DOLE. Evenin the absence of E.O. 111, Regional Directorsalready had enforcement powers over moneyclaims, effective under P.D. 850, issued onDecember 16, 1975, which transferred laborstandards cases from the arbitration system tothe enforcement system.1.03 BASIS FOR ENACTMENT
 Themaintenance of peace and order, the protectionof life, liberty, and property, and promotion of thegeneral welfare are essential for the enjoymentby all the people of the blessings of democracy.
 The Stateaffirms labor as a primary social economic force.It shall protect the rights of workers and promotetheir welfare.
 TheCongress shall give highest priority to theenactment of measures that protect and enhancethe right of all the people to human dignity,reduce social, economic, and politicalinequalities, and remove cultural inequities byequitably diffusing wealth and political power forthe common good. To this end, the State shall regulate theacquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments.Police Power
CMS Estate Inc v Social Security System
 The Social Security Law was enactedpursuant to the policy of the government "todevelop, establish gradually and perfect a socialsecurity system which shall be suitable to theneeds of the people throughout the Philippines,and shall provide protection against the hazardsof disability, sickness, old age and death" (Sec. 2,RA 1161, as amended).Membership in the SSS is not a result of bilateral, consensual agreement where the rightsand obligations of the parties are defined by andsubject to their will, RA 1161 requires compulsorycoverage of employees and employers under theSystem. It is actually a legal imposition on saidemployers and employees, designed to providesocial security to the workingmen. The principleof non-impairment of the obligation of contract asprovided in the Bill of Rights is not a properdefense, the enactment being a lawful exerciseof the police power of the State.1.04 SOURCES OF LAWA. Labor Code and Related Special Legislation I(Implementing Rules)B. Contract
 Art 1305 CC
A contract is a meeting of mindsbetween two persons whereby one binds himself,with respect to the other, to give something or torender some service.
 Art 1306 CC
 The contracting parties mayestablish such stipulations, clauses, terms andconditions as they may deem convenient,provided they are not contrary to law, morals,good customs, public order, or public policy.
Kasapian v CA
 The MOA, being a contract freely enteredinto by the parties, now constitutes as the lawbetween them, and the interpretation of itscontents purely involves an evaluation of the lawas applied to the facts herein.C. Collective Bargaining Agreement
DOLE Phils v Pawis ng Makabayang Obrero
 The exercise of management prerogativeis not unlimited. It is subject to the limitationsprovided by law. In this case, there was a CBA(meal allowance provision is found in theirprevious CBAs, the 1985-1988 CBA and the 1990-1995 CBA), and compliance therewith ismandated by the express policy of the law.D. Past Practices
Davao Fruits Corp v Associated Labor Union
From 1975 to 1981, petitioner had freely,voluntarily and continuously included in thecomputation of its employees' thirteenth monthpay, the payments for sick, vacation andmaternity leaves, premiums for work done onrest days and special holidays, and pay for
regular holidays. The considerable length of timethe questioned items had been included bypetitioner indicates a unilateral and voluntary acton its part, sufficient in itself to negate any claimof mistake.
Samahang Manggagawa v NLRC
Granted that private respondent TFM hadgranted an across-the-board increase pursuant toRepublic Act No. 6727,
that single instance
maynot be considered an established companypractice.
 American Wire and Cable Daily Rated EmployeesUnion v American Wire and Cable Co Inc
For a bonus to be enforceable, it has tobe promised by the employer and expresslyagreed upon by the parties or it must have afixed amount and had been a long and regularpractice on the part of the employer. To beconsidered “regular practice” the giving of thebonus should have been done over a long periodof time and must be shown to have beenconsistent and deliberate. There was a downtrend in the amountgiven for service awards. There was also adowntrend with respect to the holding of Christmas parties as the locations were changedfrom paid venues to free ones. The additional35% premium pay for work during Holy Week andChristmas season cannot be held to have ripenedinto a company practice that the petitioners havea right to demand. This practice was only grantedfor two years and with the express reservationfrom respondent corporation’s owner that itcannot continue the same in view of thecompany’s current financial condition.
Pag-asa Steel Works Inc v CA
 To ripen into a company practice that isdemandable as a matter of right, the giving of the increase should not be by reason of a strictlegal or contractual obligation, but by reason of an act of liberality on the part of the employer. The only instance when petitioneradmittedly implemented a wage order despitethe fact that the employees were not receivingsalaries below the minimum wage was underWage Order No. NCR-07. Petitioner, however,explains that it did so because it was agreedupon in the CBA that should a wage increase beordered within six months from its signing,petitioner would give the increase to theemployees in addition to the CBA-mandatedincreases. Respondent’s isolated act could hardlybe classified as a "company practice" orcompany usage that may be considered anenforceable obligation.E. Company Policies
China Banking Corp v Borromeo
Forfeiture of benefits/privileges may alsobe effected in cases where infractions orviolations were incurred in connection with orarising from the application/availment thereof.It is well recognized that companypolicies and regulations are, unless shown to begrossly oppressive or contrary to law, generallybinding and valid on the parties and must becomplied with until finally revised or amendedunilaterally or preferably through negotiation orby competent authority.1.05 LAW AND WORKER
Cebu Royal Plant v Minster of Labor 
Sec. 8, Rule I, Book VI, of the Rules andRegulations implementing the Labor Code:
Disease as a ground for dismissal 
. — Where theemployee suffers from a disease and hiscontinued employment is prohibited by law orprejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees, the employer shall not terminate hisemployment unless there is a certification by acompetent public health authority that thedisease is of such nature or at such a stage thatit cannot be cured within a period of six (6)months even with proper medical treatment. If the disease or ailment can be cured within theperiod, the employer shall not terminate theemployee but shall ask the employee to take aleave. The employer shall reinstate suchemployee to his former position immediatelyupon the restoration of his normal health.We agree that there was here an attemptto circumvent the law by separating theemployee after five months' service to preventhim from becoming a regular employee, and thenrehiring him on probation, again without securityof tenure. We cannot permit this subterfuge if weare to be true to the spirit and mandate of social justice. On the other hand, we have also thehealth of the public and of the dismissedemployee himself to consider. Hence, althoughwe must rule in favor of his reinstatement, thismust be conditioned on his fitness to resume hiswork, as certified by competent authority.
Sinco – Philippine Constitutional Law pp130-134Bernas – 1987 Constitution of the Philippines: ACommentary pp 441-445
Lapanday Agricultural Development Corp v CA
 The enforcement of the written contractdoes not fall under the jurisdiction of the NLRCbecause the money claims involved therein didnot arise from employer-employee relationsbetween the parties and is intrinsically a civildispute. Thus, jurisdiction lies with the regularcourts. The RTC has jurisdiction over the subjectmatter of the present case. It is well settled inlaw and jurisprudence that where no employer-employee relationship exists between the partiesand no issue is involved which may be resolvedby reference to the Labor Code, other laborstatutes or any collective bargaining agreement,it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction.While the resolution of the issue involves theapplication of labor laws, reference to the laborcode was only for the determination of thesolidary liability of the petitioner to therespondent where no employer-employeerelation exists. Article 217 of the Labor Code asamended vests upon the labor arbiters exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction only over the following:
Unfair labor practices;
 Termination disputes;
If accompanied with a claim forreinstatement, those cases that workersmay file involving wages, rates of pay,hours of work and other terms andconditions of employment;
Claims for actual, moral exemplary andother form of damages arising fromemployer-employee relations;
Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, includingquestions involving legality of strikes andlockouts; and
Except claims for EmployeesCompensation, Social Security, Medicareand maternity benefits, all other claims,arising from employer-employee relations,including those of persons in domestic orhousehold service, involving an amountexceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00)regardless of whether accompanied with aclaim for reinstatement.In all these cases, an employer-employeerelationship is an indispensable jurisdictionalrequisite.
Villamaria v CA
Under the boundary-hulog scheme, adual juridical relationship is created: that of employer-employee and vendor-vendee. TheKasunduan did not extinguish the employer-employee relationship of the parties extantbefore the execution of said deed. The boundary system is a scheme by anowner/operator engaged in transportingpassengers as a common carrier to primarilygovern the compensation of the driver, that is,the latter’s daily earnings are remitted to theowner/operator less the excess of the boundarywhich represents the driver’s compensation.Under this system, the owner/operator exercisescontrol and supervision over the driver. Themanagement of the business is still in the handsof the owner/operator, who, being the holder of the certificate of public convenience, must see toit that the driver follows the route prescribed bythe franchising and regulatory authority, and therules promulgated with regard to the businessoperations. The fact that the driver does notreceive fixed wages but only the excess of the“boundary” given to the owner/operator is notsufficient to change the relationship betweenthem. Indubitably, the driver performs activitieswhich are usually necessary or desirable in theusual business or trade of the owner/operator.
 The existence of an employment relation is notdependent on how the worker is paid but on thepresence or absence of control over the means andmethod of the work.
 The amount earned in excessof the “boundary hulog” is equivalent to wagesand the fact that the power of dismissal was notmentioned in the Kasunduan did not mean thatprivate respondent never exercised such power,or could not exercise such power.1.07 CASE DECISION
 Anino v NLRC
A decision should faithfully comply withSec. 14, Art. VIII of the Constitution. (No decisionshall be rendered by any court [or quasi-judicialbody] without expressing therein clearly anddistinctly the facts of the case and the law onwhich it is based.) The NLRC was definitely wanting in theobservance of the constitutional requirement. Itmerely raised a doubt on the motive of thecomplaining employees and took "judicial noticethat in one area of Mindanao, the mining industrysuffered economic difficulties." The factual and legal bases of publicrespondent's conclusions were bereft of substantial evidence — the quantum of proof inlabor cases its disposition is manifestly aviolation of the constitutional mandate and anexercise of grave abuse of discretion. Suchdecision is a nullity.
EDI Staff Builders International Inc v Magsino
No undue sympathy is to be accorded toany claim of a procedural misstep in labor cases.Such must be decided accdg to justice andequity. Petitioners not implausibly ascribed tothe fault of counsel failure to file a position paperwith Labor Arbiter. Court deems it best to admitsuch evidence.1.08 MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONRecognition
Gustilo v Wyeth Phils Inc
It is the employer’s prerogative toprescribe reasonable rules and regulationsnecessary or proper for the conduct of itsbusiness or concern to provide certaindisciplinary measures to implement said rulesand to assure that the same be complied with. Atthe same time, it is one of the fundamentalduties of the employee to yield obedience to allreasonable rules, orders, and instructions of theemployer, and willful or intentional disobediencethereof, as a general rule, justifies rescission of the contract of service and the preemptorydismissal of the employee.In the case at bar, there is NOexceptional circumstances to warrant the grantof financial assistance or separation pay topetitioner. G did not only violate companydisciplinary rules and regulations. He falsified hisemployment application form by not statingtherein that he is the nephew of Mr. Danao,respondent Wyeth’s Nutritional TerritoryManager. G manifested his slack of moralprinciple through his infractions. In simple term,he is dishonest.
Philcor Employees Union v Phil GlobalCommunications
PhilCom, being in the communicationsindustry, is engaged in a vital industry protectedfrom strikes and lockouts by PD 823 as amendedby PD 849. The Secretary had already assumed jurisdiction. Striking employees defied the return-to-work order.Regardless of their motives, validity of claims, or pending motions, the strikingemployees should have ceased and desistedfrom all acts undermining the authority grantedto the Secretary under Art. 263(g). A return-to-work order is immediately effective andexecutory despite the filing of a motion forreconsideration. It must be strictly complied witheven during the pendency of any petitionquestioning its validity. A return-to-work orderimposes a duty that must be discharged morethan it confers a right that may be waived. Whilethe workers may choose not to obey, they do soat the risk of severing their relationship with theiremployer as it is valid ground for dismissal. Art.264(a) governs defiance of such order.Limitations

Activity (58)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
cyndigrace_m liked this
Shelan Teh liked this
Roland Aparece liked this
spoiled_brat liked this
iciamadarang liked this
Josiah Briz-Rull liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->