1.[G.R. No. 118506.

April 18, 1997]

NORMA MABEZA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PETER NG/HOTEL SUPREME, respondents
on September 26, 2011

April 18, 1997

Labor Standards Abandonment of Work Loss of Confidence

Mabeza was an employee hired by Hotel Supreme in Baguio City. In 1991, an inspection was made by the DOLE at Hotel Supreme and the DOLE inspectors discovered several violations by the hotel management. Immediately, the owner of the hotel, Peter Ng, directed his employees to execute an affidavit which would purport that they have no complaints whatsoever against Hotel Supreme. Mabeza signed the affidavit but she refused to certify it with the prosecutors office. Later, when she reported to work, she was not allowed to take her shift. She then asked for a leave but was not granted yet shes not being allowed to work. In May 1991, she then sued Peter Ng for illegal dismissal. Peter Ng, in his defense, said that Mabeza abandoned her work. The labor arbiter who handled the case, a certain Felipe Pati, ruled in favor of Peter Ng. ISSUE: Whether or not there is abandonment in the case at bar. Whether or not loss of confidence as ground for dismissal applies in the case at bar. HELD: No. The side of Peter Ng is bereft of merit so is the decision of the Labor Arbiter which was unfortunately affirmed by the NLRC.Abandonment is not present. Mabeza returned several times to inquire about the status of her work or her employment status. She even asked for a leave but was not granted. Her asking for leave is a clear indication that she has no intention to abandon her work with the hotel. Even the employer knows that his purported reason of dismissing her due to abandonment will not fly so he amended his reply to indicate that it is actually loss of confidence that led to Mabezas dismissal.

2.[G.R. No. 123880. February 23, 1999]

MARANAW HOTELS AND RESORT CORPORATION, (Owner of Century Park Sheraton Manila), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and EDDIE DAMALERIO, respondents.
on September 25, 2011

Download a copy of this digest. February 23, 1999

Labor Standards Working Conditions and Rest Periods Illegal Dismissal

Damalerio was a roomboy for Maranaw Hotels. One day, he was cleaning the room of one of the guests when he saw the private stuff of the guest scattered all over the floor. So he took it upon him to pick those up and put in the guests bag but then when he was doing so the guest (Jamie Glaser) entered the room and saw Damalerios hand inside Glasers bag. Glaser filed a complaint against Damalerio. Damalerio was dismissed subsequently. ISSUE: Whether or not Damalerio was illegally dismissed. HELD: Yes. Although it was not completely proper for Damalerio to be touching the things of a hotel guest while cleaning the hotel rooms, personal belongings of hotel guests being off-limits to roomboys, under the attendant facts and circumstances, that the dismissal of Damalerio was unwarranted. To be sure, the investigation held by the hotel security people did not unearth enough evidence of culpability. It bears repeating that Glaser lost nothing. Albeit Maranaw Hotels may have reasons to doubt the honesty and trustworthiness of Damalerio, as a result of what happened, absent sufficient proof of guilt, Damalerio, who is a rank-and-file employee, cannot be legally dismissed. As for the service charges received by Maranaw Hotels during the period where he was not able to work hes entitled to the shares therefrom. But if he chooses not to be reinstated by reason of the estranged relations with the hotel, hes entitled to separation pay but without the shares from the service charges anymore.

3. SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 111988 October 14, 1994 ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU)-TUCP in behalf of its members at AMS FARMING CORPORATION,petitioner, vs. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ROSALINA LETRONDO-MONTEJO and AMS FARMING CORPORATION,respondent. Seno, Mendoza and Associates for petitioner. Castro, Enriquez, Carpio, Guillen and Associates for priva
on September 25, 2011

Download a copy of this digest. October 14, 1994

Labor Standards Working Conditions and Rest Periods Holiday Pay SK Elections
Associated Labor Union entered into a CBA with AMS Farming Corporation in 1990. The CBA was to be effective from 1990 to 1995. Part of the CBA provides that AMS Farming shall be paying for holiday pay which shall include among others local and national elections. In 1992, the President declared December 4, 1992 as a general election for Sanggunian Kabataan throughout the nation. AMS Farming did not pay any holiday for said day as it argued that said election by any stretch of the imagination cannot be considered as a local election within the meaning of CBA because not all people can vote in the said election but only qualified youths. The issue reached the Labor Arbiter and the arbiter (Montejo) ruled in favor of AMS Farming. ISSUE: Whether or not the SK Election held on December 4, 1994 is a holiday. HELD: Yes. It is in fact a regular election as even defined by the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. It was even announced through the media that such day is a nonworking holiday. Consequently, whether in the context of the CBA or the Labor Code, December 4, 1992 was a holiday for which holiday pay should be paid by AMS Farming Corporation.

G.R. No. L-65482 December 1, 1987 JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEACHERS/OFFICE WORKERS, respondents.

on September 25, 2011

Download a copy of this digest. December 1, 1987

Labor Standards Working Conditions and Rest Periods Holiday Pay

The National Alliance of Teachers sued Jose Rizal College for alleged nonpayment of unworked holidays from 1975 to 1977. The members of the Alliance concerned are faculty members who are paid on the basis of student contract hour. ISSUE: Whether or not the school faculty are entitled to unworked holiday pay. HELD: As far as unworked regular holidays are concerned, the teachers are not entitled to holiday pay. Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both school and faculty members as no class days; certainly the latter do not expect payment for said unworked days, and th is was clearly in their minds when they entered into the teaching contracts. On the other hand, the teachers are entitled to be paid for unworked special holidays. Otherwise stated, the faculty member, although forced to take a rest, does not earn what he should earn on that day. Be it noted that when a special public holiday is declared, the faculty member paid by the hour is deprived of expected income, and it does not matter that the school calendar is extended in view of the days or hours lost, for their income that could be earned from other sources is lost during the extended days. Similarly, when classes are called off or shortened on account of typhoons, floods, rallies, and the like, these faculty members must likewise be paid, whether or not extensions are ordered.

Escorpizo vs University of Baguio

on September 22, 2011

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 121962. April 30, 1999] ESPERANZA C. ESCORPIZO, and UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO FACULTY EDUCATION WORKERS

UNION, petitioners, vs. UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO and VIRGILIO C. BAUTISTA and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

Download a copy of this digest.

Labor Standards Illegal Dismissal CBA

Escorpizo was a high school teacher in UB contracted to be a probationary teacher from 1989-1991. The terms of her employment stipulate that in order for her to be regularized, she should get a satisfactory rating and she should pass the board examination for teachers. After the lapse of her probationary period, UB was not supposed to re-sign her because she failed the board exam but upon her pleading she was re-signed for one year but still a probationary. She took the board exam again but she failed during the same school year. So when UB was considering the list of teachers for next year, Escopizo was no longer considered. Meanwhile, Escorpizo again took the exam this time she passed. But UB no longer took her in to teach. Her labor union assisted her in suing UB averring that in the CBA, passing the board is not a requisite to be regularized. ISSUE: Whether or not Escorpizo should be reinstated as a teacher. HELD: No. Escorpizo was not illegally dismissed. UB was well within its right to require its teachers to pass the board before teaching, The Department of Education also rolled out an order requiring that teachers should pass the board before teaching. This is to ensure the quality of education in the country. As between the CBA and the DECS order, what should prevail is the requirements so provided by the government.

Rada vs NLRC
on August 16, 2011

Download a copy of this digest. January 9, 1992

Labor Standards Hours of Work OT Pay of a Project Based Employee

In 1977, Rada was contracted by Philnor Consultants and Planners, Inc as a driver. He was assigned to a specific project in Manila. The contract he signed was for 2.3 years. His task was to drive employees to the project from 7am to 4pm. He was allowed to bring home the company vehicle in order to provide a timely transportation service to the other project workers. The project he was assigned to was not completed as scheduled hence, since he has a satisfactory record, he was re-contracted for an additional 10 months. After 10 months the project was not yet completed. Several contracts thereafter were made until the project was finished in 1985. At the completion of the project, Rada was terminated as his employment was co-terminous with the project. He later sued Philnor for non payment of separation pay and overtime pay. He said he is entitled to be paid OT pay because he uses extra time to get to the project site from his home and from the project site to his home everyday in total, he spends an average of 3 hours OT every day. ISSUE: Whether or not Rada is entitled to separation pay and OT pay. HELD: Separation pay NO. Overtime pay Yes.

Separation Pay
The SC ruled that Rada was a project employee whose work was coterminous with the project for which he was hired. Project employees, as distinguished from regular or non-project employees, are mentioned in Section 281 of the Labor Code as those where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they are employed, regardless of the number of projects in which they have been employed by a particular construction company. Moreover, the company is not required to obtain clearance from the Secretary of Labor in connection with such termination.

OT Pay

Rada is entitled to OT pay. The fact that he picks up employees of Philnor at certain specified points along EDSA in going to the project site and drops them off at the same points on his way back from the field office going home to Marikina, Metro Manila is not merely incidental to Radas job as a driver. On the contrary, said transportation arrangement had been adopted, not so much for the convenience of the employees, but primarily for the benefit of Philnor. As embodied in Philnors memorandum, they allowed their drivers to bring home their transport vehicles in order for them to provide a timely transport service and to avoid delay not really so that the drivers could enjoy the benefits of the company vehicles nor for them to save on fair.
G.R. No. 96078 HILARIO RADA Petitioner,Vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) and PHILNOR CONSULTANTS AND PLANNERS, INC.,respondents.,

Arica vs NLRC
on August 16, 2011

Download a copy of this digest. February 28, 1989

Labor Standards Hours of Work Assembly Time

Teofilo Arica et al and 561 others sued Standard Fruits Corporation (STANFILCO) Philippines for allegedly not paying the workers for their assembly time which takes place every work day from 5:30am to 6am. The assembly time consists of the roll call of the workers; their getting of assignments from the foreman; their filling out of the Laborers Daily Accomplishment Report; their getting of tools and equipments from the stockroom; and their going to the field to work. The workers alleged that this is necessarily and primarily for STANFILCOs benefit. ISSUE: Whether or not the workers assembly time should be paid. HELD: No. The thirty minute assembly time long practiced and institutionalized by mutual consent of the parties under Article IV, Section 3, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement cannot be considered as waiting time within the purview of Section 5, Rule I, Book III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code . . . Furthermore, the thirty (30)-minute assembly is a deeply-rooted, routinary practice of the employees, and the proceedings attendant thereto are not infected with complexities as to deprive the workers the

time to attend to other personal pursuits. In short, they are not subject to the absolute control of the company during this period, otherwise, their failure to report in the assembly time would justify the company to impose disciplinary measures.
G.R. No. 78210

TEOFILO ARICA, DANILO BERNABE, MELQUIADES DOHINO, ABONDIO OMERTA, GIL TANGIHAN, SAMUEL LABAJO, NESTOR NORBE, RODOLFO CONCEPCION, RICARDO RICHA, RODOLFO NENO, ALBERTO BALATRO, BENJAMIN JUMAMOY, FERMIN DAAROL, JOVENAL ENRIQUEZ, OSCAR BASAL, RAMON ACENA, JAIME BUGTAY, and 561 OTHERS, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY KORONADO B. APUZEN, petitioners, Vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, HONORABLE CONRADO B. MAGLAYA, HONORABLE ROSARIO B. ENCARNACION, and STANDARD (PHILIPPINES) FRUIT CORPORATION, respondents.,