Case Doctrines in Labor Relations: Kiok Loy v. NLRC

Case Doctrines in Labor Relations
Kiok Loy v. NLRC

Collective bargaining, which is defned as negotiations towards a
collective agreement, is one of the democratic frameworks under the
New Labor Code, designed to stabilize the relation between labor and
management and to create a climate of sound and stable industrial
peace !t is a mutual responsibilit" of the emplo"er and the #nion and
is characterized as a legal obligation $o much so that %rticle &'(, par
)g* of the Labor Code makes it an unfair labor practice for an emplo"er
to refuse +to meet and convene promptl" and e,peditiousl" in good
faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to
wages, hours of work, and all other terms and conditions of
emplo"ment including proposals for ad-usting an" grievance or
.uestion arising under such an agreement and e,ecuting a contract
incorporating such agreement, if re.uested b" either part"
/hile it is a mutual obligation of the parties to bargain, the
emplo"er, however, is not under an" legal dut" to initiate contract
negotiation 0he mechanics of collective bargaining is set in motion
onl" when the following -urisdictional preconditions are present,
namel", )1* possession of the status of ma-orit" representation of the
emplo"ees2 representative in accordance with an" of the means of
selection or designation provided for b" the Labor Code3 )&* proof of
ma-orit" representation3 and )4* a demand to bargain under %rticle
&51, par )a* of the Labor Code
% Compan"2s refusal to make counter proposal if considered in
relation to the entire bargaining process, ma" indicate bad faith and
this is speciall" true where the #nion2s re.uest for a counter proposal
is left unanswered
Unfair labor practice is committed when it is shown that the
emplo"er, after having been served with a written bargaining proposal
b" the petitioning #nion, did not even bother to submit an answer or
repl" to the said proposal
St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC
6ver since appeals from the NLRC to the $upreme Court were
eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil action
of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for -udicial review of
decisions of the NLRC 0he use of the word +appeal7 in relation thereto
could have been a lapsus plumae because appeals b" certiorari and
the original action for certiorari are both modes of -udicial review
addressed to the appellate courts 0he important distinction between
them, however, is that the special civil action of certiorari is within the
concurrent original -urisdiction of the $upreme Court and the Court of
%ppeals3 whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals b"
certiorari to the $upreme Court are allowed would not subserve, but
would subvert, the intention of Congress
General Milling Corp. v. C
0he relation between labor and management should be undisturbed
until the last 89 da"s of the ffth "ear
:or refusing to send a counter;proposal to the union and to bargain
anew on the economic terms of the C<%, the compan" committed an
unfair labor practice under %rticle &'= of the Labor Code
#nder %rticle &5&, both parties are re.uired to perform their mutual
obligation to meet and convene promptl" and e,peditiousl" in good
faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement
0he procedure in collective bargaining prescribed b" the Code is
mandator" because of the basic interest of the state in ensuring
lasting industrial peace
:ailure b" the emplo"er to make a timel" repl" to the proposals
presented b" the union is indicative of its utter lack of interest in
bargaining with the union
%n emplo"er2s refusal to make a counter;proposal to the union2s
proposal for C<% negotiation is an indication of its bad faith /here
the emplo"er did not even bother to submit an answer to the
bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the dut"
to bargain collectivel"
%rt &54 mandates the parties to keep the status .uo while the" are
still in the process of working out their respective proposal and
counter proposal 0he general rule is that when a C<% alread" e,ists,
its provision shall continue to govern the relationship between the
parties, until a new one is agreed upon
#nder ordinar" circumstances, it is not obligator" upon either side
of a labor controvers" to precipitatel" accept or agree to the proposals
of the other <ut an erring part" should not be allowed to resort with
impunit" to schemes feigning negotiations b" going through empt"
gestures
Min!anao Steel Corp. v. Min"teel Free #orker" $rgani%ation
&M'NFR(#$)NFL* Cagayan +e $ro
%n" doubt or ambiguit" in the contract between management and
the union members should be resolved in the light of %rticle 1>9& of
1
the Civil Code which provides? +)!*n case of doubt, all labor legislation
and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safet" and
decent living for the laborer7
0he terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract
constitute the law between the parties 0hose who are entitled to its
benefts can invoke its provisions !n the event that an obligation
therein imposed is not fulflled, the aggrieved part" has the right to go
to court for redress
% wage increase granted b" an emplo"er to its emplo"ees under the
C<% cannot be considered as creditable beneft or compliance with a
/age @rder because such was intended as a C<% or negotiated wage
increase
Capitol Me!ical Center, 'nc. v. -ra.ano
'""ue/ petition for the cancellation of certifcate of registration
involves a pre-udicial .uestion that should frst be settled before the
$ecretar" of Labor could order the parties to bargain collectivel"
Hel!/ No 0hat there is a pending cancellation proceedings is not a
bar to set in motion the mechanics of collective bargaining !f a
certifcation election ma" still be ordered despite the pendenc" of a
petition to cancel the union2s registration certifcate, more so should
the collective bargaining process continue despite its pendenc"
0he ma-orit" status of a union is not aAected b" the pendenc" of
the Betition for Cancellation pending against it #nless its certifcate of
registration and its status as the certifed bargaining agent are
revoked, the Cospital is, b" e,press provision of the law, dut" bound
to collectivel" bargain with the #nion
0he discretion to assume -urisdiction ma" be e,ercised b" the
$ecretar" of Labor and 6mplo"ment without the necessit" of prior
notice or hearing given to an" of the parties 0he rationale for his
primar" assumption of -urisdiction can -ustifabl" rest on his own
consideration of the e,igenc" of the situation in relation to the
national interests
0elyca Corp. v. Calle.a
0he factors in determining the proper constituenc" of a collective
bargaining unit are )1* will of emplo"ees )Glove +octrine*3 )&* aDnit"
and unit" of emplo"ee2s interest, such as substantial similarit" of work
and duties or similarit" of compensation and working conditions3 )4*
prior collective bargaining histor"3 and )'* emplo"ment status, such as
temporar", seasonal and probationar" emplo"ees
community an! mutuality of intere"t te"t? the test of proper
grouping which calls for the determination of positions and categories
of work to which workers belong, and the unit" of emplo"ees2 interest
such as substantial similarit" of work and duties
0he basic test of an asserted bargaining unit2s acceptabilit" is
whether or not it is fundamentall" the combination which will best
assure to all emplo"ees the e,ercise of their collective bargaining
rights
0he emplo"ees2 withdrawal from union membership taking place
after the fling of the petition for certifcation election will not aAect
said petition @n the contrar", the presumption arises that the
withdrawal was not free but was procured through duress, coercion or
for a valuable consideration
#ntil a decision, fnal in character, has been issued declaring the
strike illegal and the mass dismissal or retrenchment valid, the strikers
cannot be denied participation in the certifcation election
notwithstanding, the vigorous condemnation of the strike and the fact
that the picketing were attended b" violence #nder the foregoing
circumstances, it does not necessaril" follow that the strikers in
.uestion are no longer entitled to participate in the certifcation
election on the theor" that the" have automaticall" lost their -obs
0he dut" of the emplo"er to bargain collectivel" is nullifed if the
purpose of the dismissal of the union members is to defeat the union
in the consent re.uirement for certifcation election
%s a general rule, a certifcation election is the sole concern of the
workers 0he onl" e,ception is where the emplo"er has to fle a
petition for certifcation election pursuant to %rt &5( of the Labor
Code because the latter was re.uested to bargain collectivel" <ut
thereafter the role of the emplo"er in the certifcation process ceases
0he emplo"er becomes merel" a b"stander
1L v. NLRC &ug. 23, 2443*
'""ue/ whether management ma" be compelled to share with the
union or its emplo"ees its prerogative of formulating a code of
discipline
Hel!/ Ees !ndustrial peace cannot be achieved if the emplo"ees are
denied their -ust participation in the discussion of matters aAecting
&
their rights 0hus, even before %rticle &11 of the labor Code )BD ''&*
was amended b" Republic %ct No 8>15, it was alread" declared a
polic" of the $tate, +)d* 0o promote the enlightenment of workers
concerning their rights and obligations as emplo"ees7 0his was, of
course, amplifed b" Republic %ct No 8>15 when it decreed the
+participation of workers in decision and polic" making processes
aAecting their rights, duties and welfare7
St. Sc5ola"tica6" College v. -orre"
'""ue/ whether the Labor $ecretar" has the power to assume
-urisdiction over a labor dispute and its incidental controversies,
causing or likel" to cause a strike or lockout in an industr"
indispensable to the national interest
Hel!/ Ees 0he Labor $ecretar" was e,plicitl" granted b" %rticle &84
)g* of the Labor Code the authorit" to assume -urisdiction over a labor
dispute causing or likel" to cause a strike or lockout in an industr"
indispensable to the national interest, and decide the same
accordingl" Necessaril", this authorit" to assume -urisdiction over the
said labor dispute must include and e,tend to all .uestions and
include and e,tend to all .uestions and controversies arising
therefrom, including cases over which the Labor %rbiter has e,clusive
-urisdiction
%rticle &1> of the Labor Code did contemplate of e,ceptions thereto
where the $ecretar" is authorized to assume -urisdiction over a labor
dispute otherwise belonging e,clusivel" to the Labor %rbiter
%rticle &84 )g* of the Labor Code was broad enough to give the
$ecretar" of Labor and 6mplo"ment the power to take -urisdiction over
an issue involving unfair labor practice
<efore the $ecretar" of Labor and 6mplo"ment ma" take
cognizance of an issue which is merel" incidental to the labor dispute,
therefore, the same must be involved in the labor disputed itself, or
otherwise submitted to him for resolution !f it was not, and he
nevertheless acted on it, that assumption of -urisdiction is tantamount
to a grave abuse of discretion
0he submission of an incidental issue of a labor dispute, in
assumption andFor certifcation cases, to the $ecretar" of Labor and
6mplo"ment for his resolution is thus one of the instances referred to
whereb" the latter ma" e,ercise concurrent -urisdiction together with
the Labor %rbiters
'""ue/ whether striking union members, terminated for abandonment
of work after failing to compl" strictl" with a return;to;work order,
should be reinstated
Hel!/ %rticle &84 )g* of the Labor Code provides that if a strike has
alread" taken place at the time of assumption, +all striking
emplo"ees shall immediatel" return to work7 0his means that b" its
ver" terms, a return;to;work order is immediatel" eAective and
e,ecutor" notwithstanding the fling of a motion for reconsideration !t
must be strictl" complied with even during the pendenc" of an"
petition .uestioning its validit" %fter all, the assumption andFor
certifcation order is issued in the e,ercise of respondent $6CR60%RE2s
compulsive power of arbitration and, until set aside, must therefore be
immediatel" complied with
0he respective liabilities of striking union oDcers and members who
failed to immediatel" compl" with the return;to;work order is outlined
in %rt &8' of the Labor Code which provides that an" declaration of a
strike or lockout after the $ecretar" of Labor and 6mplo"ment has
assumed -urisdiction over the labor dispute is considered an illegal
act %n" worker or union oDcer who knowingl" participates in a strike
def"ing a return;to;work order ma", conse.uentl", +be declared to
have lost his emplo"ment status7
$ection 8 Rule !G, of the 1((9 Rules of Brocedure of the NLRC, which
provides the penalties for def"ing a certifcation order of the $ecretar"
of Labor or a return;to;work order of the Commission, also reiterates
the same penalt" !t specifcall" states that non;compliance with the
aforesaid orders, which is considered an illegal act, +shall authorize
the $ecretar" of Labor and 6mplo"ment or the Commission to
enforce the same under pain of loss of emplo"ment status7 #nder the
Labor Code, assumption andFor certifcation orders are similarl"
treated
<" insisting on staging the restrained strike and defantl" picketing
the compan" premises to prevent the resumption of operations, the
strikers have forfeited their right to be readmitted, having abandoned
their positions, and so could be validl" replaced
% strike undertaken despite the issuance b" the $ecretar" of Labor
of an assumption or certifcation order becomes a prohibited activit"
and thus illegal, pursuant to the second paragraph of %rt &8' of the
Labor Code as amended 0he union oDcers and members, as a result,
are deemed to have lost their emplo"ment status for having
knowingl" participated in an illegal act
4
0he moment a worker defes a return;to;work order, he is deemed
to have abandoned his -ob !t is alread" in itself knowingl"
participating in an illegal act
15imco 'n!u"trie", 'nc. v. 0rillante"
0he Labor Code vests in the $ecretar" of Labor the discretion to
determine what industries are indispensable to the national interest
%ccordingl", upon the determination b" the $ecretar" of Labor that
such industr" is indispensable to the national interest, he will assume
-urisdiction over the labor dispute in the said industr" 0his power,
however, is not without an" limitation !t covers onl" strikes or
lockouts adversel" aAecting the national interest
0he $ecretar"2s assumption of -urisdiction grounded on the alleged
+obtaining circumstances7 and not on a determination that the
industr" involved in the labor dispute is one indispensable to the
+national interest7, the standard set b" the legislature, constitutes
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or e,cess of
-urisdiction
Calte7 re8nery (mployee" ""n. v. 0rillante"
0he labor secretar" should take cognizance of an issue which is not
merel" incidental to but essentiall" involved in the labor dispute itself,
or which is otherwise submitted to him for resolution
No particular setup for a grievance machiner" is mandated b" law
Rather, %rticle &89 of the Labor Code, as incorporated b" R% 8>15,
provides for onl" a single grievance machiner" in the compan" to
settle problems arising from +interpretation or implementation of their
collective bargaining agreement and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of compan" personnel policies7
0he parties will decide on the number of arbitrators who ma" hear a
dispute onl" when the need for it arises 6ven the law itself does not
specif" the number of arbitrators !n eAect, the parties are aAorded
the latitude to decide for themselves the composition of the grievance
machiner" as the" fnd appropriate to a particular situation
""n. of 'n!epen!ent Union" in t5e 15il". v. NLRC
% union;recognition;strike is calculated to compel the emplo"er to
recognize one2s union, and not the other contending group, as the
emplo"ees2 bargaining representative to work out a collective
bargaining agreement despite the striking union2s doubtful ma-orit"
status to merit voluntar" recognition and lack of formal certifcation as
the e,clusive representative in the bargaining unit
/hen a collective bargaining agreement has been dul" registered in
accordance with %rticle &41 of the Labor Code, a petition for
certifcation election or motion for intervention ma" be entertained
onl" within 89 da"s prior to the e,pir" date of the said agreement
@utside the said period, the petition for certifcation election or motion
for intervention cannot be allowed
0o be valid, a strike must be pursued within legal bounds 0he law
provides limits for its e,ercise %mong such limits are the prohibited
activities under %rticle &8' of the Labor Code, particularl" paragraph
)e*, which states that no person engaged in picketing shall? )a* commit
an" act of violence, coercion, or intimidation or )b* obstruct the free
ingress to or egress from the emplo"er2s premises for lawful purposes
or )c* obstruct public thoroughfares 6ven if the strike is valid because
its ob-ective or purpose is lawful, the strike ma" still be declared
invalid where the means emplo"ed are illegal
#nion oDcers are dut" bound to guide their members to respect the
law !f instead of doing so, the oDcers urge the members to violate the
law and def" the dul" constituted authorities, their dismissal from the
service is a -ust penalt" or sanction for their unlawful acts
%n ordinar" striking emplo"ee cannot be terminated for mere
participation in an illegal strike 0here must be proof that he
committed illegal acts during the strike 1> and the striker who
participated in the commission of illegal act must be identifed <ut
proof be"ond reasonable doubt is not re.uired $ubstantial evidence
available under the attendant circumstances, which ma" -ustif" the
imposition of the penalt" of dismissal, ma" suDce
Sub"tantial evi!ence is more than a mere scintilla !t means such
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as suDcient to
support a conclusion
:or the severest administrative penalt" of dismissal to attach, the
erring strikers must be dul" identifed $impl" referring to them as
+strikers7, +%!# strikers7 +complainants in this case7 is not enough to
-ustif" their dismissal
MSF -ire an! Rubber, 'nc. v. C
innocent by"tan!er rule? 0he right to picket as a means of
communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of the freedom
of speech guaranteed b" the constitution !f peacefull" carried out, it
'
cannot be curtailed even in the absence of emplo"er;emplo"ee
relationship
0he right is, however, not an absolute one /hile peaceful picketing is
entitled to protection as an e,ercise of free speech, we believe the
courts are not without power to confne or localize the sphere of
communication or the demonstration to the parties to the labor
dispute, including those with related interest, and to insulate
establishments or persons with no industrial connection or having
interest totall" foreign to the conte,t of the dispute 0hus the right
ma" be regulated at the instance of third parties or +innocent
b"standers7 if it appears that the inevitable result of its is to create an
impression that a labor dispute with which the" have no connection or
interest e,ists between them and the picketing union or constitute an
invasion of their rights
%n +innocent b"stander,7 who seeks to en-oin a labor strike, must
satisf" the court that aside from the grounds specifed in Rule 5= of
the Rules of Court, it is entirel" diAerent from, without an" connection
whatsoever to, either part" to the dispute and, therefore, its interests
are totall" foreign to the conte,t thereof
rt. 9:4
15e"c5em 'n!u"trial Corp. v. Mol!e%
0he legal conse.uences of an illegal dismissal are reinstatement of
the emplo"ee without loss of seniorit" rights and other privileges, and
pa"ment of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other
benefts or their monetar" e.uivalent 0he law intended reinstatement
to be the general rule !t is onl" when reinstatement is no longer
feasible that pa"ment of separation pa" is awarded to an illegall"
dismissed emplo"ee
Rein"tatement is the restoration to a state or condition from which
one had been removed or separated Ba"ment of separation pa" as a
substitute for reinstatement is allowed onl" under e,ceptional
circumstances, viz? )1* when reasons e,ist which are not attributable
to the fault or be"ond the control of the emplo"er, such as, when the
emplo"er, who is in severe fnancial strait and has suAered serious
business losses, has ceased operations, implemented retrenchment,
or abolished the position due to the installation of labor;saving
devices3 )&* when the illegall" dismissed emplo"ee has contracted a
disease and his reinstatement will endanger the safet" of his co;
emplo"ees3 or, )4* where strained relationship e,ists between the
emplo"er and the dismissed emplo"ee
0he !octrine of ;"traine! relation"< cannot be used recklessl"
or applied loosel" to deprive an illegall" dismissed emplo"ee of his
means of livelihood and den" him reinstatement /hile in the natural
course of events, a certain degree of hostilit" is engendered b"
litigation, it will not b" itself constitute suDcient proof of the e,istence
of strained relations to rule out the possibilit" of reinstatement
@mission to pra" for reinstatement in a position paper before the
labor arbiter cannot be considered as an implied waiver to be
reinstated !t is a mere procedural lapse which should not aAect an
emplo"ee2s substantive right to reinstatement
0u"tamante v. NLRC
%rt &=9 enumerates two )&* kinds of emplo"ees, the regular
emplo"ees and the casual emplo"ees 0he regular emplo"ees consist
of the following? )1* those engaged to perform activities which are
usuall" necessar" or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
emplo"er3 and )&* those who have rendered at least one "ear of
service whether such service is continuous or broken
0he act of hiring and re;hiring emplo"ees over a period of time
without considering them as regular emplo"ees evidences bad faith
on the part of an emplo"er 0he subse.uent rehiring of emplo"ees on
a probationar" ma" be a convenient subterfuge on the part of
management to prevent emplo"ees from becoming regular
emplo"ees
"ian -erminal", 'nc. v. NLRC
0o -ustif" the dismissal of an emplo"ee for abandonment, an
emplo"er should establish b" concrete evidence the concurrence of
two elements? frst, that the emplo"ee had the intention to
deliberatel" and without -ustifcation abandon his emplo"ment or
refuse to resume his work3 and second, that the emplo"ee performed
overt acts from which it ma" be deduced that he no longer intended
to work
%bsences incurred b" an emplo"ee who is prevented from reporting
for work due to his detention to answer some criminal charge is
e,cusable if his detention is baseless, in that the criminal charge
against him is not at all supported b" suDcient evidence
0he fact that the NLRC did not award backwages to the respondents
or that the respondents themselves did not appeal the NLRC decision
does not bar the Court of %ppeals from awarding backwages /hile as
a general rule, a part" who has not appealed is not entitled to
5
aDrmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the
court below, the Court of %ppeals is imbued with suDcient authorit"
and discretion to review matters, not otherwise assigned as errors on
appeal, if it fnds that their consideration is necessar" in arriving at a
complete and -ust resolution of the case or to serve the interests of
-ustice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal -ustice
%rticle &>( of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that an
illegall" dismissed emplo"ee is entitled to the twin reliefs of )a* either
reinstatement or separation pa", if reinstatement is no longer viable,
and )b* backwages <oth are distinct reliefs given to alleviate the
economic damage suAered b" an illegall" dismissed emplo"ee and,
thus, the award of one does not bar the other <oth reliefs are rights
granted b" substantive law which cannot be defeated b" mere
procedural lapses $ubstantive rights like the award of backwages
resulting from illegal dismissal must not be pre-udiced b" a rigid and
technical application of the rules
Carlo" v. C
0he fling of the complaint for illegal dismissal is inconsistent with
resignation Resignation is the voluntar" act of emplo"ees who are
compelled b" personal reasons to dissociate themselves from their
emplo"ment !t must be done with the intention of relin.uishing an
oDce, accompanied b" the act of abandonment
%n emplo"ee who is un-ustl" dismissed from work shall be entitled
to reinstatement without loss of seniorit" rights and other privileges
and to full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefts
or their monetar" e.uivalents computed from the time compensation
was withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement
0he grant of back wages allows the un-ustl" and illegall" dismissed
emplo"ee to recover from the emplo"er that which the former lost b"
wa" of wages as a result of his dismissal from emplo"ment Cowever,
where reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations
between the parties, separation pa" e.uivalent to one month2s salar"
for ever" "ear of service shall be granted
'""ue/ /hen is the period for computation of backwages and
separation pa" supposed to endH
Hel!/ 0he award for separation pa" e.uivalent to one;month pa" for
ever" "ear of service shall be computed from the time of illegal
dismissal up to the fnalit" of the court2s decision
&995 Revised Rules of Brocedure of the National Labor Relations
Commission provides?
Rule I!!
Broceeding <efore the Commission
, , , ,
$ection 1' :inalit" of Decision of the Commission and 6ntr" of
Judgment K
a* :inalit" of the Decisions, Resolutions or @rders of the Commission K
6,cept as provided in $ection ( of Rule G, the decisions, resolutions or
orders of the Commission shall become fnal and e,ecutor" after ten
)19* calendar da"s from receipt thereof b" the parties
b* 6ntr" of Judgment K #pon the e,piration of the ten )19* calendar
da" period provided in paragraph )a* of this $ection, the decision,
resolution, or order shall be entered in a book of entries of -udgment
0he 6,ecutive Clerk or Deput" 6,ecutive Clerk shall consider the
decision, resolution or order as fnal and e,ecutor" after si,t" )89*
calendar da"s from the date of mailing in the absence of return cards,
certifcations from the post oDce, or other proof of service to parties
$6C0!@N 15 L@0!@N$ :@R R6C@N$!D6R%0!@N K Lotion for
reconsideration of an" decision, resolution or order of the Commission
shall not be entertained e,cept when based on palpable or patent
errors3 provided that the motion is under oath and fled within ten )19*
calendar da"s from receipt of decision, resolution or order, with proof
of service that a cop" of the same has been furnished, within the
reglementar" period, the adverse part"3 and provided further, that
onl" such motion from the same part" shall be entertained
$hould a motion for reconsideration be entertained pursuant to this
section, the resolution shall be e,ecutor" after ten )19* calendar da"s
from receipt thereof
R#L6 G!
6,ecution Broceedings
, , , ,
$6C0!@N 19 6Aect of Betition for Certiorari on 6,ecution K % petition
for certiorari with the Court of %ppeals or the $upreme Court shall not
sta" the e,ecution of the assailed decision unless a restraining order is
issued b" said courts
% prevailing part" has a right to move for the e,ecution of the
monetar" award of the NLRC pending appeal
8
=o5n"on > =o5n"on &15il".*, 'nc. v. =o5n"on $?ce > Sale"
Union)Fe!eration of Free #orker"
%n illegall" dismissed emplo"ee is entitled to reinstatement as a
matter of right /here reinstatement is not feasible, e,pedient or
practical, as where reinstatement would onl" e,acerbate the tension
and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship
between the emplo"er and emplo"ee has been undul" strained b"
reason of their irreconcilable diAerences, particularl" where the
illegall" dismissed emplo"ee held a managerial or ke" position in the
compan", it would be more prudent to order pa"ment of separation
pa" instead of reinstatement !n other words, the pa"ment of
separation compensation in lieu of the reinstatement of an emplo"ee
who was illegall" dismissed from work shall be allowed if and onl" if
the emplo"er can prove the e,istence of circumstances showing that
reinstatement will no longer be for the mutual beneft of the emplo"er
and emplo"ee
Neither part" )emplo"er and emplo"ee* can claim that it has the
categorical right to choose between reinstatement and the pa"ment of
the monetar" award #ltimatel", the NLRC has the authorit" to
e,ecute its -udgment and to settle an" issue that ma" arise pertaining
to the manner or details of implementing its -udgment
Caving been illegall" dismissed, complainants;appellants are
normall" entitled to reinstatement to their respective former positions
without loss of seniorit" rights and privileges and to pa"ment of
backwages and other benefts Cowever, inasmuch, as the" are not
entirel" faultless as the" did not follow e,act procedures in the
performance of their duties complainants;appellants should thus be
reinstated to their former position without loss of seniorit" rights and
privileges but without an" backwages whatsoever or in the
alternative, should thus be paid separation pa" each e.uivalent to 1F&
month pa" for ever" "ear of service
N@K 'nt6l KnitAear Corp. 15il". v. NLRC
'""ue/ whether refusal to render night work is tantamount to
abandonment of duties which constitutes a -ust ground for termination
of service
Hel!/ No )see re.uisites of abandonment*
Lanager and other responsible oDcers of the corporation fall within
the meaning of an +emplo"er7 as contemplated b" the Labor Code
who ma" be held -ointl" and severall" liable for the obligations of the
corporation to its dismissed emplo"ees
Re"taurante la" Conc5a" v. Llego
%lthough as a rule, the oDcers and members of a corporation are
not personall" liable for acts done in the performance of their duties,
this rule admits of e,ceptions, one of which is when the emplo"er
corporation is no longer e,isting and is unable to satisf" the -udgment
in favor of the emplo"ee, the oDcers should be held liable for acting
on behalf of the corporation
C5ri"tian Literature Cru"a!e v. NLRC
!n case of defance or non;compliance with the writ of e,ecution, the
remed" is not for the grant in another writ of e,ecution of continuing
backwages up to the time of actual reinstatement 0he remed" is to
fle a motion to cite the erring part" in contempt
Soli!bank Corp. v. C
!n termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the emplo"er to
show that the dismissal is for -ust and valid cause3 failure to do so
would necessaril" mean that the dismissal was illegal
%s a rule, emplo"ees who are illegall" dismissed are entitled to full
backwages and reinstatement to their former positions without loss of
seniorit" rights 0here are instances, however, where reinstatement is
no longer viable as where the business of the emplo"er has closed, or
where the relations between the emplo"er and the emplo"ee have
been so severel" strained that it is not advisable to order
reinstatement, or where the emplo"ee decides not to be reinstated
/hen an emplo"ee e,plicitl" pra"ed for an award of separation pa" in
lieu of reinstatement, he forecloses reinstatement as a relief b"
implication
rt. 9BC
Franci"co v. NLRC
0here has been no uniform test to determine the e,istence of an
emplo"er;emplo"ee relation Menerall", courts have relied on the so;
called rig5t of control te"t where the person for whom the services
are performed reserves a right to control not onl" the end to be
achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end !n
addition to the standard of right;of;control, the e,isting economic
conditions prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the
emplo"ee in the pa"rolls, can help in determining the e,istence of an
emplo"er;emplo"ee relationship
>
Cowever, in certain cases the control test is not suDcient to give a
complete picture of the relationship between the parties, owing to the
comple,it" of such a relationship where several positions have been
held b" the worker 0here are instances when, aside from the
emplo"er2s power to control the emplo"ee with respect to the means
and methods b" which the work is to be accomplished, economic
realities of the emplo"ment relations help provide a comprehensive
anal"sis of the true classifcation of the individual, whether as
emplo"ee, independent contractor, corporate oDcer or some other
capacit"
0he better approach would therefore be to adopt a two;tiered test
involving? )1* the putative emplo"er2s power to control the emplo"ee
with respect to the means and methods b" which the work is to be
accomplished3 and )&* the underl"ing economic realities of the activit"
or relationship
broa!er economic reality te"t? 0he determination of the
relationship between emplo"er and emplo"ee depends upon the
circumstances of the whole economic activit", && such as? )1* the
e,tent to which the services performed are an integral part of the
emplo"er2s business3 )&* the e,tent of the worker2s investment in
e.uipment and facilities3 )4* the nature and degree of control
e,ercised b" the emplo"er3 )'* the worker2s opportunit" for proft and
loss3 )5* the amount of initiative, skill, -udgment or foresight re.uired
for the success of the claimed independent enterprise3 )8* the
permanenc" and duration of the relationship between the worker and
the emplo"er3 and )>* the degree of dependenc" of the worker upon
the emplo"er for his continued emplo"ment in that line of business
!n a business establishment, an identifcation card is provided not
onl" as a securit" measure but mainl" to identif" the holder thereof as
a bona fde emplo"ee of the frm that issues it 0ogether with the cash
vouchers covering an emplo"ee2s salaries for the months stated
therein, these matters constitute substantial evidence ade.uate to
support a conclusion that one is reall" an emplo"ee
% corporation who registers its workers with the $$$ is proof that
the latter were the former2s emplo"ees 0he coverage of $ocial
$ecurit" Law is predicated on the e,istence of an emplo"er;emplo"ee
relationship
% !iminution of pay is pre-udicial to the emplo"ee and amounts to
constructive dismissal Con"tructive !i"mi""al is an involuntar"
resignation resulting in cessation of work resorted to when continued
emplo"ment becomes impossible, unreasonable or unlikel"3 when
there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pa"3 or when a clear
discrimination, insensibilit" or disdain b" an emplo"er becomes
unbearable to an emplo"ee /here an emplo"ee ceases to work due
to a demotion of rank or a diminution of pa", an unreasonable
situation arises which creates an adverse working environment
rendering it impossible for such emplo"ee to continue working for his
emplo"er Cence, his severance from the compan" was not of his own
making and therefore amounted to an illegal termination of
emplo"ment
Lambo v. NLRC
0here are two categories of emplo"ees paid b" results? )1* those
whose time and performance are supervised b" the emplo"er )Cere,
there is an element of control and supervision over the manner as to
how the work is to be performed % piece;rate worker belongs to this
categor" especiall" if he performs his work in the compan" premises*3
and )&* those whose time and performance are unsupervised )Cere,
the emplo"er2s control is over the result of the work /orkers on
pak"ao and taka" basis belong to this group* <oth classes of workers
are paid per unit accomplished Biece;rate pa"ment is generall"
practiced in garment factories where work is done in the compan"
premises, while pa"ment on pak"ao and taka" basis is commonl"
observed in the agricultural industr", such as in sugar plantations
where the work is performed in bulk or in volumes diDcult to .uantif"
!n determining the e,istence of an emplo"er;emplo"ee relationship,
the following elements must be considered? )1* the selection and
engagement of the emplo"ee3 )&* the pa"ment of wages3 )4* the
power of dismissal3 and )'* the power to control the emplo"ee2s
conduct @f these elements, the most important criterion is whether
the emplo"er controls or has reserved the right to control the
emplo"ee not onl" as to the result of the work but also as to the
means and methods b" which the result is to be accomplished
0he mere fact that emplo"ees are paid on a piece;rate basis does
not negate their status as regular emplo"ees 0he term +wage7 is
broadl" defned in %rt (> of the Labor Code as remuneration or
earnings, capable of being e,pressed in terms of mone" whether f,ed
or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis Ba"ment b"
the piece is -ust a method of compensation and does not defne the
essence of the relations Nor does the fact that emplo"ees are not
covered b" the $$$ aAect the emplo"er;emplo"ee relationship
0o -ustif" a fnding of abandonment of work, there must be proof of
a deliberate and un-ustifed refusal on the part of an emplo"ee to
resume his emplo"ment 0he burden of proof is on the emplo"er to
show an une.uivocal intent on the part of the emplo"ee to discontinue
=
emplo"ment Lere absence is not suDcient !t must be accompanied
b" manifest acts unerringl" pointing to the fact that the emplo"ee
simpl" does not want to work an"more
Not all .uitclaims are per se invalid or against public polic" <ut
those )1* where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from
an unsuspecting or gullible person or )&* where the terms of
settlement are unconscionable on their face are invalid !n these
cases, the law will step in to annul the .uestionable transaction
0he subordinate position of the individual emplo"ee vis;a;vis
management renders him especiall" vulnerable to its blandishments,
importunings, and even intimidations, and results in his improvidentl"
waiving benefts to which he is clearl" entitled 0hus, .uitclaims,
waivers or releases are looked upon with disfavor for being contrar" to
public polic" and are ineAective to bar claims for the full measure of
the workers2 legal rights %n emplo"ee who is merel" constrained to
accept the wages paid to him is not precluded from recovering the
diAerence between the amount he actuall" received and that amount
which he should have received
0rent Sc5ool, 'nc. v. Damora
0here is nothing essentiall" contradictor" between a defnite period
of an emplo"ment contract and the nature of the emplo"ee2s duties
set down in that contract as being +usuall" necessar" or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the emplo"er7 0he concept of the
emplo"ee2s duties as being +usuall" necessar" or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the emplo"er7 is not s"non"mous with or
identical to emplo"ment with a f,ed term Logicall", the decisive
determinant in term emplo"ment should not be the activities that the
emplo"ee is called upon to perform, but the da" certain agreed upon
b" the parties for the commencement and termination of their
emplo"ment relationship, a da" certain being understood to be +that
which must necessaril" come, although it ma" not be known when7
Sea"onal employment, and employment for a particular pro.ect
are merel" instances emplo"ment in which a period, where not
e,pressl" set down, necessaril" implied
%rt &=9 impliedl" acknowledged the propriet" of term emplo"ment?
it listed the +-ust causes7 for which +an emplo"er ma" terminate
emplo"ment without a defnite period,7 thus giving rise to the
inference that if the emplo"ment be with a defnite period, there need
be no -ust cause for termination thereof if the ground be precisel" the
e,piration of the term agreed upon b" the parties for the duration of
such emplo"ment
%rticle &=9 of the Labor Code has no application to instances where
a f,ed period of emplo"ment was agreed upon knowingl" and
voluntaril" b" the parties, without an" force, duress or improper
pressure being brought to bear upon the emplo"ee and absent an"
other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactoril"
appears that the emplo"er and emplo"ee dealt with each other on
more or less e.ual terms with no moral dominance whatever being
e,ercised b" the former over the latter
Ra!a v. NLRC
/hile it is true that the pa"ment of the supersedeas bond is an
essential re.uirement in the perfection of an appeal, however, where
the fee had been paid although pa"ment was dela"ed, the broader
interests of -ustice and the desired ob-ective of resolving controversies
on the merits demands that the appeal be given due course
Bro-ect emplo"ees2 work is coterminous with the pro-ect or which
the" were hired Bro-ect emplo"ees, as distinguished from regular or
non;pro-ect emplo"ees, are mentioned in section &=1 of the Labor
Code as those +where the emplo"ment has been f,ed for a specifc
pro-ect or undertaking the completion or termination of which has
been determined at the time of the engagement of the emplo"ee7
1ro.ect employee" are those emplo"ed in connection with a
particular construction pro-ect Non;pro-ect )regular* emplo"ees are
those emplo"ed b" a construction compan" without reference to an"
particular pro-ect
Bro-ect emplo"ees are not entitled to termination pa" if the" are
terminated as a result of the completion of the pro-ect or an" phase
thereof in which the" are emplo"ed, regardless of the number of
pro-ects in which the" have been emplo"ed b" a particular
construction compan" Loreover, the compan" is not re.uired to
obtain clearance from the $ecretar" of Labor in connection with such
termination
% non;pro-ect emplo"ee is diAerent in that the emplo"ee is hired for
more than one pro-ect /hen a pro-ect to which the" are individuall"
assigned is completed, the" would be assigned to the ne,t pro-ect or a
phase thereof !n other words, the" belonged to a +work pool7 from
which the compan" would draw workers for assignment to other
pro-ects at its discretion
'mbui!o v. NLRC
(
0he principal test for determining whether an emplo"ee is a pro-ect
emplo"ee or a regular emplo"ee is whether the pro-ect emplo"ee was
assigned to carr" out a specifc pro-ect or undertaking, the duration
and scope of which were specifed at the time the emplo"ee was
engaged for that pro-ect % pro.ect employee is one whose
emplo"ment has been f,ed for a specifc pro-ect or undertaking, the
completion or termination of which has been determined at the time
of the engagement of the emplo"ee or where the work or service to
be performed is seasonal in nature and the emplo"ment is for the
duration of the season
% pro-ect emplo"ee or a member of a work pool ma" ac.uire the
status of a regular emplo"ee when the following concur? )1* 0here is a
continuous rehiring of pro-ect emplo"ees even after NtheO cessation of
a pro-ect3 and )&* 0he tasks performed b" the alleged +pro-ect
emplo"ee7 are vital, necessar" and indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the emplo"er
Low volume of work and belatedl", completion of pro-ect are not
valid causes for dismissal under %rticles &=& and &=4 of the Labor
Code 0hus, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniorit" rights and other privileges, and to her full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and to her other benefts or their monetar"
e.uivalent computed from the time her compensation was withheld
from her up to the time of her actual reinstatement Cowever,
compl"ing with the principle" of ;"u"pen"ion of Aork< an! ;no
Aork, no pay< between the end of one pro-ect and the start of a new
one, in computing petitioner2s backwages, the amounts corresponding
to what could have been earned during the periods from the date
petitioner was dismissed until her reinstatement when private
respondent was not undertaking an" pro-ect, should be deducted
Fatima v. Nat6l Fe!eration of Sugarcane #orker"EFoo! an!
General -ra!e
:or emplo"ees to be e,cluded from those classifed as regular
emplo"ees, it is not enough that the" perform work or services that
are seasonal in nature 0he" must have also been emplo"ed onl" for
the duration of one season
0he primar" standard of determining regular emplo"ment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activit" performed b"
the emplo"ee in relation to the usual trade or business of the
emplo"er 0he test is whether the former is usuall" necessar" or
desirable in the usual trade or business of the emplo"er 0he
connection can be determined b" considering the nature of the work
performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or
trade in its entiret" %lso if the emplo"ee has been performing the -ob
for at least a "ear, even if the performance is not continuous and
merel" intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for
its performance as suDcient evidence of the necessit" if not
indispensabilit" of that activit" to the business Cence, the
emplo"ment is considered regular, but onl" with respect to such
activit" and while such activit" e,ists
0he fact that workers do not work continuousl" for one whole "ear
but onl" for the duration of the season does not detract from
considering them in regular emplo"ment since seasonal workers who
are called to work from time to time and are temporaril" laid oA during
oA;season are not separated from service in said period, but merel"
considered on leave until re;emplo"ed
/here there is no showing of clear, valid and legal cause for the
termination of emplo"ment, the law considers the matter a case of
illegal dismissal and the burden is on the emplo"er to prove that the
termination was for a valid and authorized cause
Millare" v. NLRC
%rticle &=9 of the Labor Code does not appl" to overseas
emplo"ment
C)( Con"truction Corp. v. NLRC
6ven after a -udgment has become fnal and e,ecutor", an appellate
court ma" still modif" or alter it when intervening circumstances
render e,ecution of that decision un-ust and ine.uitable 0his principle
does not appl", however, when the basis for modifcation is previousl"
e,isting evidence that a part" fails to adduce during the hearing on
the merits, despite ample opportunit" to do so
6,cept for correction of clerical errors, fnal and e,ecutor"
-udgments can neither be amended nor altered, even if the purpose is
to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or of law
0he pa"ment of full back wages must be given without diminution
of income earned during the +no;work7 status of an illegall" dismissed
emplo"ee
Son%a v. 0S)C0N 0roa!ca"ting Corp.
0he control test is the most important test our courts appl" in
distinguishing an emplo"ee from an independent contractor 0his test
is based on the e,tent of control the hirer e,ercises over a worker 0he
19
greater the supervision and control the hirer e,ercises, the more likel"
the worker is deemed an emplo"ee 0he converse holds true as well K
the less control the hirer e,ercises, the more likel" the worker is
considered an independent contractor
% radio broadcast specialist who works under minimal supervision is
an independent contractor <eing an e,clusive talent does not b" itself
mean that a 0IFradio talent is an emplo"ee of %<$;C<N 6ven an
independent contractor can validl" provide his services e,clusivel" to
the hiring part" !n the broadcast industr", e,clusivit" is not
necessaril" the same as control
0he hiring of e,clusive talents is a widespread and accepted
practice in the entertainment industr"'8 0his practice is not designed
to control the means and methods of work of the talent, but simpl" to
protect the investment of the broadcast station 0he broadcast station
normall" spends substantial amounts of mone", time and eAort +in
building up its talents as well as the programs the" appear in and thus
e,pects that said talents remain e,clusive with the station for a
commensurate period of time7 Normall", a much higher fee is paid to
talents who agree to work e,clusivel" for a particular radio or
television station !n short, the huge talent fees partiall" compensates
for e,clusivit"
!n a labor;onl" contract, there are three parties involved? )1* the
+labor;onl"7 contractor3 )&* the emplo"ee who is ostensibl" under the
emplo" of the +labor;onl"7 contractor3 and )4* the principal who is
deemed the real emplo"er #nder this scheme, t5e ;labor)only<
contractor i" t5e agent of t5e principal 0he law makes the
principal responsible to the emplo"ees of the +labor;onl" contractor7
as if the principal itself directl" hired or emplo"ed the emplo"ees
Fierne" v. NLRC
Rein"tatement means restoration to a state or condition from
which one had been removed or separated !n case of probationar"
emplo"ment, %rticle &=1 of the Labor Code re.uires the emplo"er to
make known to his emplo"ee at the time of the latter2s engagement of
the reasonable standards under which he ma" .ualif" as a regular
emplo"ee
#nder %rticle &=9 of the Labor Code, a regular emplo"ee is one who
is engaged to perform activities which are necessar" or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the emplo"er, or a casual emplo"ee
who has rendered at least one "ear of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activit" in which he is emplo"ed
0he primar" standard, therefore, of determining regular
emplo"ment is the reasonable connection between the particular
activit" performed b" the emplo"ee in relation to the usual trade or
business of the emplo"er 0he test is whether the former is usuall"
necessar" or desirable in the usual business or trade of the emplo"er
0he connection can be determined b" considering the nature of the
work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular
business or trade in its entiret" %lso if the emplo"ee has been
performing the -ob for at least a "ear, even if the performance is not
continuous and merel" intermittent, the law deems repeated and
continuing need for its performance as suDcient evidence of the
necessit" if not indispensabilit" of that activit" to the business Cence,
the emplo"ment is considered regular, but onl" with respect to such
activit" and while such activit" e,ists
%n emplo"er becomes liable to pa" indemnit" to an emplo"ee who
has been dismissed if, in eAecting such dismissal, the emplo"er fails
to compl" with the re.uirements of due process 0he indemnit" is in
the form of nominal damages intended not to penalize the emplo"er
but to vindicate or recognize the emplo"ee2s right to procedural due
process which was violated b" the emplo"er #nder %rticle &&&1 of the
Civil Code, nominal !amage" are ad-udicated in order that a right of
the plaintiA, which has been violated or invaded b" the defendant,
ma" be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnif"ing the plaintiA for an" loss suAered b" him
!ndemnit" is not incompatible with the award of backwages 0hese
two awards are based on diAerent considerations <ackwages are
granted on grounds of e.uit" to workers for earnings lost due to their
illegal dismissal from work @n the other hand, the award of
indemnit", as we have earlier held, is meant to vindicate or recognize
the right of an emplo"ee to due process which has been violated b"
the emplo"er
%rticle &=4 of the Labor Code re.uires an emplo"er to serve a notice
of dismissal upon the emplo"ees sought to be terminated and to the
Department of Labor, at least one month before the intended date of
termination :ailure of the emplo"er to compl" therewith renders him
liable to pa" indemnit" to the dismissed emplo"ee
Remington 'n!u"trial Sale" Corp. v. Ca"taGe!a
% househelper in the staA houses of an industrial compan" is a
regular emplo"ee of the said frm
#nder Rule G!!!, $ection 1)b*, <ook 4 of the Labor Code, as
amended, the terms ;5ou"e5elper< or ;!ome"tic "ervant< are
11
defned as follows? +0he term Phousehelper2 as used herein is
s"non"mous to the term Pdomestic servant2 and shall refer to an"
person, whether male or female, who renders services in and about
the emplo"er2s home and which services are usuall" necessar" or
desirable for the maintenance and en-o"ment thereof, and ministers
e,clusivel" to the personal comfort and en-o"ment of the emplo"er2s
famil"7
$uch househelper or domestic servant is emplo"ed in the
emplo"er2s home to minister e,clusivel" to the personal comfort and
en-o"ment of the emplo"er2s famil" $uch defnition covers famil"
drivers, domestic servants, laundr" women, "a"as, gardeners,
housebo"s and similar househelps
0he criteria is the personal comfort and en-o"ment of the famil" of
the emplo"er in the home of said emplo"er /hile it ma" be true that
the nature of the work of a househelper, domestic servant or
laundr"woman in a home or in a compan" staAhouse ma" be similar
in nature, the diAerence in their circumstances is that in the former
instance the" are actuall" serving the famil" while in the latter case,
whether it is a corporation or a single proprietorship engaged in
business or industr" or an" other agricultural or similar pursuit,
service is being rendered in the staAhouses or within the premises of
the business of the emplo"er !n such instance, the" are emplo"ees of
the compan" or emplo"er in the business concerned entitled to the
privileges of a regular emplo"ee
0he mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working
within the premises of the business of the emplo"er and in relation to
or in connection with its business, as in its staAhouses for its guest or
even for its oDcers and emplo"ees, warrants the conclusion that such
househelper or domestic servant is and should be considered as a
regular emplo"ee of the emplo"er and not as a mere famil"
househelper or domestic servant as contemplated in Rule G!!!, $ection
1)b*, <ook 4 of the Labor Code, as amended
% regular emplo"ee en-o"s the right to securit" of tenure under
%rticle &>( of the Labor Code and ma" onl" be dismissed for a -ust or
authorized cause, otherwise the dismissal becomes illegal and the
emplo"ee becomes entitled to reinstatement and full backwages
computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the time of
actual reinstatement
%bandonment is the deliberate and un-ustifed refusal of an
emplo"ee to resume his emplo"ment !t is a form of neglect of dut"3
hence, a -ust cause for termination of emplo"ment b" the emplo"er
under %rticle &=& of the Labor Code, which enumerates the -ust
causes for termination b" the emplo"er :or a valid fnding of
abandonment, these two factors should be present? )1* the failure to
report for work or absence without valid or -ustifable reason3 and )&* a
clear intention to sever emplo"er;emplo"ee relationship, with the
second as the more determinative factor which is manifested b" overt
acts from which it ma" be deduced that the emplo"ee has no more
intention to work 0he intent to discontinue the emplo"ment must be
shown b" clear proof that it was deliberate and un-ustifed
%n emplo"ee who loses no time in protesting her la"oA cannot b"
an" reasoning be said to have abandoned her work 0he fling of an
emplo"ee of a complaint for illegal dismissal with a pra"er for
reinstatement is proof enough of her desire to return to work, thus,
negating the emplo"er2s charge of abandonment
+uterte v. King"Aoo! -ra!ing Co., 'nc.
'""ue/ :or purposes of %rticle &=' of the Labor Code, would the
dismissal of an emplo"ee on the ground of disease under the said
%rticle &=' still re.uire the emplo"er to present a certifcation from a
competent public health authorit" that the disease is of such a nature
that it could not be cured within a period of si, months even with
proper medical treatmentH
!n order to validl" terminate emplo"ment on the basis of disease,
<ook I!, Rule !, $ection = of the @mnibus !mplementing Rules of the
Labor Code re.uires?
Disease as a ground for dismissal Q /here the emplo"ee suAers from
a disease and his continued emplo"ment is prohibited b" law or
pre-udicial to his health or to the health of his co;emplo"ees, the
emplo"er shall not terminate his emplo"ment unle"" t5ere i" a
certi8cation by a competent public 5ealt5 aut5ority t5at t5e
!i"ea"e i" of "uc5 nature or at "uc5 a "tage t5at it cannot be
cure! Ait5in a perio! of "i7 &H* mont5" even Ait5 proper
me!ical treatment !f the disease or ailment can be cured within the
period, the emplo"er shall not terminate the emplo"ee but shall ask
the emplo"ee to take a leave 0he emplo"er shall reinstate such
emplo"ee to his former position immediatel" upon the restoration of
his normal health )<ook I!, Rule 1, $ec = of the !mplementing Rules*
0he emplo"er, before it can legall" dismiss its emplo"ee on the
ground of disease, must adduce a certifcation from a competent
public authorit" that the disease of which its emplo"ee is suAering is
of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a
period of si, months even with proper treatment
1&
Coca Cola 0ottler" &15il".*, 'nc. v. Climaco
% provision in a Retainer %greement that a worker is on call during
emergenc" cases did not make him a regular emplo"ee
0he schedule of work and the re.uirement to be on call for
emergenc" cases do not amount to such control, but are necessar"
incidents to the Retainership %greement
Fillamaria, =r. v. C
0he boun!ary)5ulog "c5eme creates both emplo"er;emplo"ee
and vendor;vendee relationship 0he boun!ary "y"tem is a scheme
b" an ownerFoperator engaged in transporting passengers as a
common carrier to primaril" govern the compensation of the driver,
that is, the latter2s dail" earnings are remitted to the ownerFoperator
less the e,cess of the boundar" which represents the driver2s
compensation #nder this s"stem, the ownerFoperator e,ercises
control and supervision over the driver 0he management of the
business is still in the hands of the ownerFoperator, who, being the
holder of the certifcate of public convenience, must see to it that the
driver follows the route prescribed b" the franchising and regulator"
authorit", and the rules promulgated with regard to the business
operations 0he fact that the driver does not receive f,ed wages but
onl" the e,cess of the +boundar"7 given to the ownerFoperator is not
suDcient to change the relationship between them !ndubitabl", the
driver performs activities which are usuall" necessar" or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the ownerFoperator
rt. 9B2
'CMC v. NLRC
:ailure to .ualif" as a regular emplo"ee in accordance with the
reasonable standards of the emplo"er is a -ust cause for terminating a
probationar" emplo"ee specifcall" recognized under %rticle &=1
% probationary employee is one who is on trial b" an emplo"er
during which the emplo"er determines whether or not he is .ualifed
for permanent emplo"ment % probationar" appointment is made to
aAord the emplo"er an opportunit" to observe the ftness of a
probationer while at work, and to ascertain whether he will become a
proper and eDcient emplo"ee 0he word +probationar"7, as used to
describe the period of emplo"ment, implies the purpose of the term or
period, but not its length
<eing in the nature of a +trial period7 the essence of a probationar"
period of emplo"ment fundamentall" lies in the purpose or ob-ective
sought to be attained b" both the emplo"er and the emplo"ee during
said period 0he length of time is immaterial in determining the
correlative rights of both in dealing with each other during said period
/hile the emplo"er, observes the ftness, propriet" and eDcienc" of a
probationer to ascertain whether he is .ualifed for permanent
emplo"ment, the probationer, on the other, seeks to prove to the
emplo"er, that he has the .ualifcations to meet the reasonable
standards for permanent emplo"ment
0he emplo"er has the right or is at libert" to choose who will be
hired and who will be denied emplo"ment !n that sense, it is within
the e,ercise of the right to select his emplo"ees that the emplo"er
ma" set or f, a probationar" period within which the latter ma" test
and observe the conduct of the former before hiring him permanentl"
%rticle &=1 of the Labor Code gives ample authorit" to the emplo"er
to terminate a probationar" emplo"ee for a -ust cause or when he fails
to .ualif" as a regular emplo"ee in accordance with reasonable
standards made known b" the emplo"er to the emplo"ee at the time
of his engagement 0here is nothing under %rticle &=1 of the Labor
Code that would preclude the emplo"er from e,tending a regular or a
permanent appointment to an emplo"ee once the emplo"er fnds that
the emplo"ee is .ualifed for regular emplo"ment even before the
e,piration of the probationar" period Conversel", if the purpose
sought b" the emplo"er is neither attained nor attainable within the
said period, %rticle &=1 of the Labor Code does not likewise preclude
the emplo"er from terminating the probationar" emplo"ment on
-ustifable causes as in the instant case
Cagayan Capitol College v. NLRC
0he legal re.uisites for a teacher to ac.uire permanent emplo"ment
and securit" of tenure are as follows? )1* 0he teacher is a full time
teacher3 )&* 0he teacher must have rendered three )4* consecutive
"ears of service3 and )4* $uch service must have been satisfactor"
0he emplo"er is the one who is to set the standards and determine
whether or not the services of an emplo"ee are satisfactor" !t is the
prerogative of an emplo"er to determine whether or not the said
standards have been complied with !n fact, it is the right of the
emplo"er to shorten the probationar" period if he is impressed with
the services of the emplo"ees
0his prerogative of a school to provide standards for its teachers and
to determine whether or not these standards have been met is in
accordance with academic freedom and constitutional autonom"
14
which give educational institution the right to choose who should
teach
Mit"ubi"5i Motor" 15il". Corp. v. C5ry"ler 15il". Labor Union
%n emplo"er, in the e,ercise of its management prerogative, ma"
hire an emplo"ee on a probationar" basis in order to determine his
ftness to perform work #nder %rticle &=1 of the Labor Code, the
emplo"er must inform the emplo"ee of the standards for which his
emplo"ment ma" be considered for regularization $uch probationar"
period, unless covered b" an apprenticeship agreement, shall not
e,ceed 8 months from the date the emplo"ee started working 0he
emplo"ee2s services ma" be terminated for -ust cause or for his failure
to .ualif" as a regular emplo"ee based on reasonable standards made
known to him
0he probationar" period of 8 months consists of 1=9 da"s
0he following grounds would -ustif" the dismissal of an emplo"ee?
)a* $erious misconduct or willful disobedience b" the emplo"ee of the
lawful orders of the emplo"er or representative in connection with his
work3 )b* Mross and habitual neglect b" the emplo"ee of his duties3 )c*
:raud or willful breach b" the emplo"ee of the trust reposed in him b"
his emplo"er or dul" authorized representative3 )d* Commission of a
crime or oAense b" the emplo"ee against the person of his emplo"er
or of an" immediate member of his famil" or his dul" authorized
representative3 and )e* @ther causes analogous to the foregoing
#nder %rticle &=& of the Labor Code, an unsatisfactor" rating can be
a -ust cause for dismissal onl" if it amounts to gross and habitual
neglect of duties Gro"" negligence has been defned to be the want
or absence of even slight care or diligence as to amount to a reckless
disregard of the safet" of person or propert" !t evinces a thoughtless
disregard of conse.uences without e,erting an" eAort to avoid them
0he normal conse.uences of illegal dismissal are reinstatement
without loss of seniorit" rights and the pa"ment of backwages
computed from the time the emplo"ee2s compensation was withheld
from him
Retrenc5ment is an authorized cause for termination of
emplo"ment which the law accords an emplo"er who is not making
good in its operations in order to cut back on e,penses for salaries
and wages b" la"ing oA some emplo"ees 0he purpose of
retrenchment is to save a fnanciall" ailing business establishment
from eventuall" collapsing
rt. 9B9
Serrano v. NLRC
0he re.uirement to give a written notice of termination at least 49
da"s in advance is a re.uirement of %rt &=4 of the Labor Code
/hat the law re.uires is a written notice to the emplo"ees
concerned and that re.uirement is mandator" 0he notice must also
be given at least one month in advance of the intended date of
retrenchment to enable the emplo"ees to look for other means of
emplo"ment and therefore to ease the impact of the loss of their -obs
and the corresponding income
0he purpose of such previous notice is to give the emplo"ee some
time to prepare for the eventual loss of his -ob as well as the D@L6 the
opportunit" to ascertain the verit" of the alleged authorized cause of
termination $uch purpose would not be served b" the simple
e,pedient of pa"ing 49 da"s salar" in lieu of notice of an emplo"ee2s
impending dismissal, as b" then the loss of emplo"ment would have
been a fait accompli
0he order to pa" full backwages is a conse.uence of the emplo"er2s
action in dismissing an emplo"ee without notice which makes said
dismissal ineAectual 0he emplo"ee is considered not to have been
terminated from his emplo"ment until it is fnall" determined that his
dismissalFtermination of emplo"ment was for cause and, therefore, he
should be paid his salaries in the interim
gabon v. NLRC
0o dismiss an emplo"ee, the law re.uires not onl" the e,istence of a
-ust and valid cause but also en-oins the emplo"er to give the
emplo"ee the opportunit" to be heard and to defend himself %rticle
&=& of the Labor Code enumerates the -ust causes for termination b"
the emplo"er? )a* serious misconduct or willful disobedience b" the
emplo"ee of the lawful orders of his emplo"er or the latter2s
representative in connection with the emplo"ee2s work3 )b* gross and
habitual neglect b" the emplo"ee of his duties3 )c* fraud or willful
breach b" the emplo"ee of the trust reposed in him b" his emplo"er or
his dul" authorized representative3 )d* commission of a crime or
oAense b" the emplo"ee against the person of his emplo"er or an"
immediate member of his famil" or his dul" authorized representative3
and )e* other causes analogous to the foregoing
%bandonment is the deliberate and un-ustifed refusal of an
emplo"ee to resume his emplo"ment !t is a form of neglect of dut",
hence, a -ust cause for termination of emplo"ment b" the emplo"er
1'
:or a valid fnding of abandonment, these two factors should be
present? )1* the failure to report for work or absence without valid or
-ustifable reason3 and )&* a clear intention to sever emplo"er;
emplo"ee relationship, with the second as the more determinative
factor which is manifested b" overt acts from which it ma" be
deduced that the emplo"ees has no more intention to work 0he intent
to discontinue the emplo"ment must be shown b" clear proof that it
was deliberate and un-ustifed
Subcontracting for another compan" clearl" shows the intention
to sever the emplo"er;emplo"ee relationship
%n emplo"ee who deliberatel" absented from work without leave or
permission from his emplo"er, for the purpose of looking for a -ob
elsewhere, is considered to have abandoned his -ob
0he procedure for terminating an emplo"ee is found in <ook I!, Rule
!, $ection &)d* of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code?
Standards of due process: requirements of notice. K !n all
cases of termination of emplo"ment, the following standards
of due process shall be substantiall" observed?
! :or termination of emplo"ment based on -ust causes as
defned in %rticle &=& of the Code?
)a* % written notice served on the emplo"ee specif"ing the
ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said
emplo"ee reasonable opportunit" within which to e,plain his
side3
)b* % hearing or conference during which the emplo"ee
concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the emplo"ee so
desires, is given opportunit" to respond to the charge, present
his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him3 and
)c* % written notice of termination served on the emplo"ee
indicating that upon due consideration of all the
circumstances, grounds have been established to -ustif" his
termination
!n case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served
on the emplo"ee2s last known address
Dismissals based on -ust causes contemplate acts or omissions
attributable to the emplo"ee while dismissals based on authorized
causes involve grounds under the Labor Code which allow the
emplo"er to terminate emplo"ees % termination for an authorized
cause re.uires pa"ment of separation pa" /hen the termination of
emplo"ment is declared illegal, reinstatement and full backwages are
mandated under %rticle &>( !f reinstatement is no longer possible
where the dismissal was un-ust, separation pa" ma" be granted
Brocedurall", )1* if the dismissal is based on a -ust cause under %rticle
&=&, the emplo"er must give the emplo"ee two written notices and a
hearing or opportunit" to be heard if re.uested b" the emplo"ee
before terminating the emplo"ment? a notice specif"ing the grounds
for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunit" to be heard
and after hearing or opportunit" to be heard, a notice of the decision
to dismiss3 and )&* if the dismissal is based on authorized causes
under %rticles &=4 and &=', the emplo"er must give the emplo"ee
and the Department of Labor and 6mplo"ment written notices 49 da"s
prior to the eAectivit" of his separation
:rom the foregoing rules four possible situations ma" be derived? )1*
the dismissal is for a -ust cause under %rticle &=& of the Labor Code,
for an authorized cause under %rticle &=4, or for health reasons under
%rticle &=', and due process was observed3 )&* the dismissal is
without -ust or authorized cause but due process was observed3 )4*
the dismissal is without -ust or authorized cause and there was no due
process3 and )'* the dismissal is for -ust or authorized cause but due
process was not observed
!n the frst situation, the dismissal is undoubtedl" valid and the
emplo"er will not suAer an" liabilit"
!n the second and third situations where the dismissals are illegal,
%rticle &>( mandates that the emplo"ee is entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniorit" rights and other privileges and full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefts or their
monetar" e.uivalent computed from the time the compensation was
not paid up to the time of actual reinstatement
!n the fourth situation, the dismissal should be upheld /hile the
procedural infrmit" cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the
dismissal Cowever, the emplo"er should be held liable for non-
compliance with the procedural requirements of due process
#enp5il or 0elate! +ue 1roce"" Rule? /here the emplo"er had
a valid reason to dismiss an emplo"ee but did not follow the due
process re.uirement, the dismissal ma" be upheld but the emplo"er
will be penalized to pa" an indemnit" to the emplo"ee
/enphil abandoned the Serrano !octrine &!i"mi"" noA, pay
later rule*? 0he violation b" the emplo"er of the notice re.uirement
in termination for -ust or authorized causes was not a denial of due
process that will nullif" the termination Cowever, the dismissal is
ineAectual and the emplo"er must pa" full backwages from the time
of termination until it is -udiciall" declared that the dismissal was for a
-ust or authorized cause
!n cases involving dismissals for cause but without observance of
the twin re.uirements of notice and hearing, the better rule is to
abandon the $errano doctrine and to follow /enphil b" holding that
the dismissal was for -ust cause but imposing sanctions on the
emplo"er $uch sanctions, however, must be stiAer than that imposed
in /enphil
15
/here the dismissal is for a -ust cause, he lack of statutor" due
process should not nullif" the dismissal, or render it illegal, or
ineAectual Cowever, the emplo"er should indemnif" the emplo"ee for
the violation of his statutor" rights 0he indemnit" to be imposed
should be stiAer to discourage the abhorrent practice of +dismiss now,
pa" later7 0he sanction should be in the nature of indemnifcation or
penalt" and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into
special consideration the gravit" of the due process violation of the
emplo"er
%n emplo"er is liable to pa" indemnit" in the form of nominal
!amage" to an emplo"ee who has been dismissed if, in eAecting
such dismissal, the emplo"er fails to compl" with the re.uirements of
due process
Fierne" v. NLRC
see supra
u"tria v. NLRC
0he provision which governs the dismissal of emplo"ees, is
comprehensive enough to include religious corporations %rticle &>= of
the Labor Code on post;emplo"ment states that +the provisions of this
0itle shall appl" to all establishments or undertakings, whether for
proft or not7 $ection 1, Rule 1, <ook I! on the 0ermination of
6mplo"ment and Retirement, categoricall" includes religious
institutions in the coverage of the law, to wit? +$ec 1 Coverage Q
0his Rule shall appl" to all establishments and undertakings, whether
operated for proft or not, including educational, medical, charitable
and religious institutions and organizations, in cases of regular
emplo"ment with the e,ception of the Movernment and its political
subdivisions including government;owned or controlled corporations7
0he re.uisites for a valid dismissal are? )a* the emplo"ee must be
aAorded due process, ie, he must be given an opportunit" to be
heard and to defend himself, and3 )b* the dismissal must be for a valid
cause as provided in %rticle &=& of the Labor Code /ithout the
concurrence of this twin re.uirements, the termination would, in the
e"es of the law, be illegal
<efore the services of an emplo"ee can be validl" terminated,
%rticle &>> )b* of the Labor Code and $ection &, Rule GG!!!, <ook I of
the Rules !mplementing the Labor Code further re.uire the emplo"er
to furnish the emplo"ee with two )&* written notices, to wit? )a* a
written notice served on the emplo"ee specif"ing the ground or
grounds for termination, and giving to said emplo"ee reasonable
opportunit" within which to e,plain his side3 and, )b* a written notice
of termination served on the emplo"ee indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established
to -ustif" his termination
0he frst notice, which ma" be considered as the proper charge,
serves to apprise the emplo"ee of the particular acts or omissions for
which his dismissal is sought 0he second notice on the other hand
seeks to inform the emplo"ee of the emplo"er2s decision to dismiss
him 0his decision, however, must come onl" after the emplo"ee is
given a reasonable period from receipt of the frst notice within which
to answer the charge and ample opportunit" to be heard and defend
himself with the assistance of a representative, if he so desires
% breach is willful if it is done intentionall", knowingl" and
purposel", without -ustifable e,cuse, as distinguished from an act
done carelessl", thoughtlessl", heedlessl" or inadvertentl" !t must
rest on substantial grounds and not on the emplo"er2s arbitrariness,
whims, caprices or suspicion
Mi"con!uct has been defned as improper or wrong conduct !t is
the transgression of some established and defnite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction of dut", willful in character, and implies
wrongful intent and not mere error in -udgment :or misconduct to be
considered serious it must be of such grave and aggravated character
and not merel" trivial or unimportant
San Miguel Corp. v. Ubal!o
Regulation of manpower b" the compan" clearl" falls within
management prerogative % vali! e7erci"e of management
prerogative encompasses hiring, work assignments, working
methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes
to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of
emplo"ees, work supervision, la";oA of workers, and the discipline,
dismissal and recall of workers 6,cept as provided for, or limited b",
special laws, an emplo"er is free to regulate, according to his own
discretion and -udgment, all aspects of emplo"ment
0he emplo"er ma" terminate an emplo"ment on the ground of
serious misconduct or willful disobedience b" the emplo"ee of the
lawful orders of his emplo"er or representative in connection with his
work (!nfractions of compan" rules and regulations have been
declared to belong to this categor" and thus are valid causes for
termination of emplo"ment b" the emplo"er
18
/illful disobedience of the emplo"er2s lawful orders, as a -ust cause
for the dismissal of an emplo"ee, envisages the concurrence of at
least two re.uisites? )1* the emplo"ee2s assailed conduct must have
been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized b" a
+wrongful and perverse attitude73 )&* the order violated must have
been reasonable, lawful, made known to the emplo"ee and must
pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge 11
<oth re.uisites are present in the instant case
Garcia v. NLRC
Lere absence or failure to report for work, after notice to return, is
not enough to amount to such abandonment :or a valid fnding of
abandonment, two factors must be present, viz3 )1* the failure to
report for work or absence without valid or -ustifable reason3 and )&* a
clear intention to sever the emplo"er;emplo"ee relationship, with the
second element as the more determinative factor being manifested b"
some overt acts 0here must be a concurrence of the intention to
abandon and some overt acts from which an emplo"ee ma" be
deduced as having no more intention to work $uch intent to
discontinue the emplo"ment must be shown b" clear proof that it was
deliberate and un-ustifed
$trict compliance b" the emplo"er with the demands of both
procedural and substantive due process is a condition sine .ua non for
the termination to be declared valid 0he law re.uires that the
emplo"er must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two
written notices before termination of emplo"ment can be legall"
eAected? 1 notice which apprises the emplo"ee of the particular acts
or omissions for which his dismissal is sought3 and & the subse.uent
notice which informs the emplo"ee of the emplo"er2s decision to
dismiss him
%n illegall" dismissed emplo"ee is entitled to 1* either
reinstatement or separation pa" if reinstatement is no longer viable,
and &* backwages
Family 1lanning $rg. of t5e 15il". v. NLRC
!t is one of the fundamental duties of the emplo"ee to "ield
obedience to all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the
emplo"er, and willful or intentional disobedience thereof, as a general
rule, -ustifes recission of the contract of service and the peremptor"
dismissal of the emplo"ee
!n order that the willful disobedience b" the emplo"ee ma"
constitute a -ust cause for terminating his emplo"ment, the orders,
regulations, or instructions of the emplo"er must be? )1* reasonable
and lawful3
)&* suDcientl" known to the emplo"ee3 and )4* in connection with the
duties which the emplo"ee has been engaged to discharge
Not ever" case of willful disobedience b" an emplo"ee of a lawful
order of the emplo"er can be reasonabl" penalized with dismissal
0here must be reasonable proportionalit" between the willful
disobedience b" the emplo"ee and the penalt" imposed therefore
prior clearance rule? %rt &>= )b*? +)b* /ith or without a collective
agreement, no emplo"er ma" shut down his established or dismiss or
terminate the emplo"ment of emplo"ees with at least one "ear of
service during the last two "ears, whether such service is continuous
or broken, without prior written authorit" issued in accordance with
such rules and regulations as the $ecretar" ma" promulgate7 Rule
G!I $ection & of the Rules !mplementing the Labor Code which was
still in force at that time, likewise provides? $ec & $hutdown or
dismissal without clearance Q %n" shutdown or dismissal without
prior clearance shall be conclusivel" presumed to be termination of
emplo"ment without a -ust cause 0he Regional Director shall, in such
case, order the immediate reinstatement of the emplo"ee and the
pa"ment of his wages from the time of the shutdown or dismissal until
the time of reinstatement
(!ge pparel, 'nc. v. NLRC
0he emplo"er has a right to dismiss emplo"ees for valid causes
after proper observance of due process ' 0hese valid causes are
categorized into two groups, ie, +-ust7 causes under %rticle &=& of
the Labor Code and +authorized7 causes under %rticles &=4 and &=' of
the same code
0he -ust causes for termination of emplo"ment, enumerated in
%rticle &=&, include Q )a* $erious misconduct or willful disobedience
b" the emplo"ee of the lawful orders of his emplo"er or representative
relative to his work3 )b* Mross and habitual neglect b" the emplo"ee of
his duties3 )c* :raud or willful breach b" the emplo"ee of the trust
reposed in him b" his emplo"er or dul" authorized representative3 )d*
Commission of a crime or oAense b" the emplo"ee against the person
of his emplo"er or an" immediate member of his famil" or his dul"
authorized representative3 and )e* @ther causes analogous to the
foregoing
%n emplo"ee who is terminated from emplo"ment for a -ust cause is
not entitled to pa"ment of separation benefts= $ection >, Rule !,
<ook I!, of the @mnibus Rules !mplementing the Labor Code provides,
1>
thus? +$ec > 0ermination of emplo"ment b" emplo"er Q 0he -ust
causes for terminating the services of an emplo"ee shall be those
provided in %rticle &=& of the Code 0he separation from work of an
emplo"ee for a -ust cause does not entitle him to the termination pa"
provided in Code, without pre-udice, however, to whatever rights,
benefts and privileges he ma" have under the applicable individual or
collective bargaining agreement with the emplo"er or voluntar"
emplo"er polic" or practice7
%rticle &=4, in turn, specifes the authorized causes for the
termination of emplo"ment, viz? )a* installation of labor;saving
devices3 )b* redundanc"3 )c* retrenchment to prevent losses3 and )d*
closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking
unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of
law
%rticle &=' provides that an emplo"er would be authorized to
terminate the services of an emplo"ee found to be suAering from an"
disease if the emplo"ee2s continued emplo"ment is prohibited b" law
or is pre-udicial to his health or to the health of his fellow emplo"ees
0he installation of labor;saving devices contemplates the
installation of machiner" to eAect econom" and eDcienc" in its
method of production
Re!un!ancy e,ists where the services of an emplo"ee are in
e,cess of what would reasonabl" be demanded b" the actual
re.uirements of the enterprise % position is redundant when it is
superRuous, and superRuit" of a position or positions could be the
result of a number of factors, such as the overhiring of workers, a
decrease in the volume of business or the dropping of a particular line
or service previousl" manufactured or undertaken b" the enterprise
%n emplo"er has no legal obligation to keep on the pa"roll emplo"ees
more than the number needed for the operation of the business
Retrenc5ment is an economic ground to reduce the number of
emplo"ees !n order to be -ustifed, the termination of emplo"ment b"
reason of retrenchment must be due to business losses or reverses
which are serious, actual and real Retrenchment is normall" resorted
to b" management during periods of business reverses and economic
diDculties occasioned b" such events as recession, industrial
depression, or seasonal Ructuations !t is an act of the emplo"er of
reducing the work force because of losses in the operation of the
enterprise, lack of work, or considerable reduction on the volume of
business 0he institution of +new methods or more eDcient machiner",
or of automation7 is technicall" a ground for termination of
emplo"ment b" reason of installation of labor;saving devices but
where the introduction of these methods is resorted to not merel" to
eAect greater eDcienc" in the operations of the business but
principall" because of serious business reverses and to avert further
losses, the device could then veril" be considered one of
retrenchment
0he pa"ment of separation pa" would be due when a dismissal is on
account of an authorized cause 0he amount of separation pa"
depends on the ground for the termination of emplo"ment % dismissal
due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundanc" )%rticle
&=4* or disease )%rticle &='*, entitles the worker to a separation pa"
e.uivalent to +one )1* month pa" or at least one )1* month pa" for
ever" "ear of service, whichever is higher7 /hen the termination of
emplo"ment is due to retrenchment to prevent losses, or to closure or
cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to
serious business losses or fnancial reverses, the separation pa" is
onl" an e.uivalent of +one )1* month pa" or at least one;half )1F&*
month pa" for ever" "ear of service, whichever is higher7 !n the
above instances, a fraction of at least si, )8* months is considered as
one )1* whole "ear
!n order to validl" eAect retrenchment, the emplo"er must observe
two other re.uirements, viz? )a* service of a prior written notice of at
least one month on the workers and the Department of Labor and
6mplo"ment, and )b* pa"ment of the due separation pa"
Ha @uan Re"taurant v. NLRC
$eparation pa" shall be allowed as a measure of social -ustice onl"
in those instances A5ere t5e employee i" vali!ly !i"mi""e! for
cau"e" ot5er t5an "eriou" mi"con!uct or t5o"e reIecting on
5i" moral c5aracter /here the reason for the valid dismissal is, for
e,ample, habitual into,ication or an oAense involving moral turpitude,
like theft or illicit se,ual relations with a fellow worker, the emplo"er
ma" not be re.uired to give the dismissed emplo"ee separation pa",
or fnancial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the
ground of social -ustice
$eparation pa" therefore, depends on the cause of dismissal, and
ma" be accordingl" awarded provided that the dismissal does not fall
under either of two circumstances? )1* there was serious misconduct,
or )&* the dismissal reRected on the emplo"ee2s moral character
Mi"con!uct is improper or wrongful conduct !t is the transgression
of some established and defnite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of dut", willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and
1=
not mere error of -udgment 0o be a valid cause for termination, the
misconduct must be serious
"ian -erminal", 'nc. v. NLRC
see supra
King of King" -ran"port, 'nc. v. Mamac
:or termination of emplo"ment based on -ust causes as defned in
%rticle &=& of the Code? )a* % written notice served on the emplo"ee
specif"ing the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said
emplo"ee reasonable opportunit" within which to e,plain his side )b*
% hearing or conference during which the emplo"ee concerned, with
the assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunit" to
respond to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence
presented against him )c* % written notice of termination served on
the emplo"ee, indicating that upon due consideration of all the
circumstances, grounds have been established to -ustif" his
termination
!n case of termination, the foregoing notices shall be served on the
emplo"ee2s last known address
0he following should be considered in terminating the services of
emplo"ees?
)1* 0he frst written notice to be served on the emplo"ees should
contain the specifc causes or grounds for termination against them,
and a directive that the emplo"ees are given the opportunit" to
submit their written e,planation within a reasonable period
;Rea"onable opportunity< under the @mnibus Rules means ever"
kind of assistance that management must accord to the emplo"ees to
enable them to prepare ade.uatel" for their defense 0his should be
construed as a period of at least fve )5* calendar da"s from receipt of
the notice to give the emplo"ees an opportunit" to stud" the
accusation against them, consult a union oDcial or law"er, gather
data and evidence, and decide on the defenses the" will raise against
the complaint Loreover, in order to enable the emplo"ees to
intelligentl" prepare their e,planation and defenses, the notice should
contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will
serve as basis for the charge against the emplo"ees % general
description of the charge will not suDce Lastl", the notice should
specifcall" mention which compan" rules, if an", are violated andFor
which among the grounds under %rt &=& is being charged against the
emplo"ees
)&* %fter serving the frst notice, the emplo"ers should schedule and
conduct a hearing or conference wherein the emplo"ees will be given
the opportunit" to? )1* e,plain and clarif" their defenses to the charge
against them3 )&* present evidence in support of their defenses3 and
)4* rebut the evidence presented against them b" the management
During the hearing or conference, the emplo"ees are given the chance
to defend themselves personall", with the assistance of a
representative or counsel of their choice Loreover, this conference or
hearing could be used b" the parties as an opportunit" to come to an
amicable settlement
)4* %fter determining that termination of emplo"ment is -ustifed, the
emplo"ers shall serve the emplo"ees a written notice of termination
indicating that? )1* all circumstances involving the charge against the
emplo"ees have been considered3 and )&* grounds have been
established to -ustif" the severance of their emplo"ment
rt. 9B3
#ilt"5ire File Co., 'nc. v. NLRC
Re!un!ancy e,ists where the services of an emplo"ee are in
e,cess of what is reasonabl" demanded b" the actual re.uirements of
the enterprise $uccinctl" put, a position is redundant where it is
superRuous, and superRuit" of a position or positions ma" be the
outcome of a number of factors, such as overhiring of workers,
decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product line
or service activit" previousl" manufactured or undertaken b" the
enterprise 0he emplo"er has no legal obligation to keep in its pa"roll
more emplo"ees than are necessaril" for the operation of its business
!t is of no legal moment that the fnancial troubles of the compan"
were not of an emplo"ee2s making %n emplo"ee cannot insist on the
retention of his position upon the ground that he had not contributed
to the fnancial problems of the compan" where he works 0he
characterization of an emplo"ee2s services as no longer necessar" or
sustainable, and therefore properl" terminable, is an e,ercise of
business -udgment on the part of a compan" 0he wisdom or
soundness of such characterization or decision was not sub-ect to
discretionar" review on the part of the Labor %rbiter nor of the NLRC
so long, of course, as violation of law or merel" arbitrar" and malicious
action is not shown
0he determination of the continuing necessit" of a particular oDcer
or position in a business corporation is management2s prerogative,
and the courts will not interfere with the e,ercise of such so long as no
abuse of discretion or merel" arbitrar" or malicious action on the part
of management is shown
1(
0ermination of an emplo"ee2s services because of retrenchment to
prevent further losses or redundanc", is governed b" %rticle &=4 of the
Labor Code
0ermination of services under %rt &=4 should be distinguished from
termination of emplo"ment b" reason of some blameworth" act or
omission on the part of the emplo"ee, in which case the applicable
provision is %rticle &=& of the Labor Code
$ections & and 5 of Rule G!I entitled +0ermination of 6mplo"ment?7
of the +Rules to !mplement the Labor Code7 read as follows?
$ec & Notice of dismissal KK %n" emplo"er who seeks to dismiss a
worker shall furnish him a written notice stating the particular acts or
omission constituting the grounds for his dismissal !n cases of
abandonment of work, the notice shall be served at the worker2s last
known address
,,, ,,, ,,,
$ec 5 %nswer and hearing KK 0he worker ma" answer the allegations
stated against him in the notice of dismissal within a reasonable
period from receipt of such notice 0he emplo"er shall aAord the
worker ample opportunit" to be heard and to defend himself with the
assistance of his representative if he so desires
/here the ground for dismissal or termination of services does not
relate to a blameworth" act or omission on the part of the emplo"ee,
there is no need for an investigation and hearing to be conducted b"
the emplo"er who does not allege an" malfeasance or nonfeasance on
the part of the emplo"ee !n such case, there are no allegations which
the emplo"ee should refute and defend himself from
0he emplo"ee ma" contest the realit" or good faith character of the
retrenchment or redundanc" asserted as grounds for termination of
services 0he appropriate forum for such controversion would,
however, be the Department of Labor and 6mplo"ment and not an
investigation or hearing to be held b" the emplo"er itself !t is
precisel" for this reason that an emplo"er seeking to terminate
services of an emplo"ee or emplo"ees because of +closure of
establishment and reduction of personnel7, is legall" re.uired to give
a written notice not onl" to the emplo"ee but also to the Department
of Labor and 6mplo"ment at least one month before eAectivit" date of
the termination
1olymart 1aper 'n!u"trie", 'nc. v. NLRC
Retrenc5ment is a management prerogative, a means to protect
and preserve the emplo"er2s viabilit" and ensure his survival !t is one
of the economic grounds to dismiss an emplo"ee resorted to b" an
emplo"er primaril" to avoid or minimize business losses !n this
regard, the emplo"er bears the burden to prove his allegation of
economic or business reverses, otherwise, it necessaril" means that
the dismissal of an emplo"ee was not -ustifed
Retrenchment or +la";oA7 is the termination of emplo"ment
initiated b" the emplo"er through no fault of the emplo"ees and
without pre-udice to the latter, resorted to b" management during
periods of business recession, industrial depression, or seasonal
Ructuations or during lulls occasioned b" lack of orders, shortage of
materials, conversion of the plant for a new production program or the
introduction of new methods or more eDcient machiner", or of
automation $impl" put, it is an act of the emplo"er of dismissing
emplo"ees because of losses in the operation of a business, lack of
work, and considerable reduction on the volume of his business
%rt &=4 of the Labor Code, as amended, recognizes retrenchment
as a mode of terminating an emplo"ment relationship #nder this
provision, there are three basic re.uisites for a valid retrenchment
0hese are? )a* the retrenchment is necessar" to prevent losses and
such losses are proven3 )b* written notice to the emplo"ees and to the
D@L6 at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment,
and )c* pa"ment of separation pa" e.uivalent to one month pa" or at
least 1F& month2s pa" for ever" "ear of service, whichever is higher
0o -ustif" retrenchment, the +loss7 referred to in %rt &=4 cannot be
-ust an" kind or amount of loss 0he following standard which a
compan" must meet to -ustif" retrenchment? :irstl", the losses
e,pected should be substantial and not merel" de minimis in e,tent !f
the loss purportedl" sought to be forestalled b" retrenchment is
clearl" shown to be insubstantial and inconse.uential in character, the
bonafde nature of the retrenchment would appear to be seriousl" in
.uestion $econdl", the substantial loss apprehended must be
reasonabl" imminent, as such imminence can be perceived ob-ectivel"
and in good faith b" the emplo"er <ecause of the conse.uential
nature of retrenchment, it must, thirdl", be reasonabl" necessar" and
likel" to eAectivel" prevent the e,pected losses 0he emplo"er should
have taken other measures prior or parallel to retrenchment to
forestall losses, ie, cut other costs other than labor costs %n
emplo"er who, for instance, la"s oA substantial numbers of workers
while continuing to dispense fat e,ecutive bonuses and per.uisites or
so;called +golden parachutes,7 can scarcel" claim to be retrenching in
good faith to avoid losses
&9
0he emplo"er bears the burden of proving an allegation of the
e,istence or imminence of substantial losses, which b" its nature is an
aDrmative defense !t is the dut" of the emplo"er to prove with clear
and satisfactor" evidence that legitimate business reasons e,ist to
-ustif" retrenchment :ailure to do so inevitabl" results in a fnding that
the dismissal is un-ustifed
Nort5 +avao Mining Corp. v. NLRC
%rt &=4 governs the grant of separation benefts +in case of
closures or cessation of operation7 of business establishments +N@0
due to serious business losses or fnancial reverses 7 /here,
however, the closure was due to business losses the Labor Code does
not impose an" obligation upon the emplo"er to pa" separation
benefts
%rt &=4 of the Labor Code does not obligate an emplo"er to pa"
separation benefts when the closure is due to losses
Nat6l Fe!eration of Labor v. NLRC
'""ue/ whether or not an emplo"er that was compelled to cease its
operation because of the compulsor" ac.uisition b" the government of
its land for purposes of agrarian reform, is liable to pa" separation pa"
to its aAected emplo"ees
Hel!/ No 0he closure contemplated under %rticle &=4 of the Labor
Code is a unilateral and voluntar" act on the part of the emplo"er to
close the business establishment as ma" be gleaned from the wording
of the said legal provision that +0he emplo"er ma" also terminate the
emplo"ment of an" emplo"ee due to 7 0he use of the word +ma",7
in a statute, denotes that it is director" in nature and generall"
permissive onl" !n other words, %rticle &=4 of the Labor Code does not
contemplate a situation where the closure of the business
establishment is forced upon the emplo"er and ultimatel" for the
beneft of the emplo"ees
rt. 9BJ
Sy v. C
!n termination cases, the burden is upon the emplo"er to show b"
substantial evidence that the termination was for lawful cause and
validl" made %rticle &>>)b* of the Labor Code puts the burden of
proving that the dismissal of an emplo"ee was for a valid or
authorized cause on the emplo"er, without distinction whether the
emplo"er admits or does not admit the dismissal :or an emplo"ee2s
dismissal to be valid, )a* the dismissal must be for a valid cause and
)b* the emplo"ee must be aAorded due process
%rticle &=' of the Labor Code authorizes an emplo"er to terminate
an emplo"ee on the ground of disease Cowever, in order to validl"
terminate emplo"ment on this ground, <ook I!, Rule !, $ection = of the
@mnibus !mplementing Rules of the Labor Code re.uires? $ec =
Disease as a ground for dismissal; /here the emplo"ee suAers from a
disease and his continued emplo"ment is prohibited b" law or
pre-udicial to his health or to the health of his co;emplo"ees, the
emplo"er shall not terminate his emplo"ment unless there is a
certifcation b" competent public health authorit" that the disease is
of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a
period of si, )8* months even with proper medical treatment !f the
disease or ailment can be cured within the period, the emplo"er shall
not terminate the emplo"ee but shall ask the emplo"ee to take a
leave 0he emplo"er shall reinstate such emplo"ee to his former
position immediatel" upon the restoration of his normal health
0he re.uirement for a medical certifcate under %rticle &=' of the
Labor Code cannot be dispensed with
$ince the burden of proving the validit" of the dismissal of the
emplo"ee rests on the emplo"er, the latter should likewise bear the
burden of showing that the re.uisites for a valid dismissal due to a
disease have been complied with !n the absence of the re.uired
certifcation b" a competent public health authorit", the validit" of the
emplo"ee2s dismissal cannot be upheld
rt. 9BK
'ntertro! Maritime, 'nc. v. NLRC
Re"ignation is the voluntar" act of an emplo"ee who +fnds himself
in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrifced in favor of the e,igenc" of the service, then he has no other
choice but to disassociate himself from his emplo"ment7 0he
emplo"er has no control over resignations and so, the notifcation
re.uirement was devised in order to ensure that no disruption of work
would be involved b" reason of the resignation
Resignations, once accepted and being the sole act of the
emplo"ee, ma" not be withdrawn without the consent of the
emplo"er
@nce an emplo"ee resigns and his resignation is accepted, he no
longer has an" right to the -ob !f the emplo"ee later changes his
mind, he must ask for approval of the withdrawal of his resignation
&1
from his emplo"er, as if he were re;appl"ing for the -ob !t will then be
up to the emplo"er to determine whether or not his service would be
continued !f the emplo"er accepts said withdrawal, the emplo"ee
retains his -ob !f the emplo"er does not the emplo"ee cannot claim
illegal dismissal for the emplo"er has the right to determine who his
emplo"ees will be
Reye" v. C
%cceptance of a resignation tendered b" an emplo"ee is necessar"
to make the resignation eAective
% re.uest for benefts granted to retrenched emplo"ees during a
time when an emplo"er is in the process of retrenching its emplo"ees
is tantamount to a recognition of the e,istence of a valid cause for
retrenchment
lfaro v. C
Menerall", an emplo"ee who voluntaril" resigns from emplo"ment is
not entitled to separation pa" %n e,ception is when the emplo"er and
the emplo"ee agreed to a scheme hereb" the former would receive
separation pa" despite having resigned voluntaril"
Foluntary re"ignation is defned as the act of an emplo"ee, who
fnds himself in a situation in which he believes that personal reasons
cannot be sacrifced in favor of the e,igenc" of the service3 thus, he
has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his emplo"ment
rt. 9BH
Globe -elecom, 'nc. v. Floren!o)Flore"
Con"tructive !i"mi""al e,ists where there is cessation of work
because +continued emplo"ment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikel", as an oAer involving a demotion in rank and
a diminution in pa"7
0he unauthorized absence of an emplo"ee should not lead to the
drastic conclusion that he has chosen to abandon his work 0o
constitute abandonment, there must be? )a* failure to report for work
or absence without valid or -ustifable reason3 and, )b* a clear
intention, as manifested b" some overt act, to sever the emplo"er;
emplo"ee relationship % charge of abandonment is totall"
inconsistent with the immediate fling of a complaint for illegal
dismissal3 more so, when it includes a pra"er for reinstatement
!n constructive dismissal, the emplo"er has the burden of proving
that the transfer and demotion of an emplo"ee are for -ust and valid
grounds such as genuine business necessit" 0he emplo"er must be
able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient, or
pre-udicial to the emplo"ee !t must not involve a demotion in rank or
a diminution of salar" and other benefts !f the emplo"er cannot
overcome this burden of proof, the emplo"ee2s demotion shall be
tantamount to unlawful constructive dismissal
15il. 'n!u"trial Security gency Corp. v. +apiton
Con"tructive !i"mi""al is defned as a +.uitting because
continued emplo"ment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikel"3 as an oAer involving a demotion in rank and diminution in
pa"7 @n the other hand, abandonment of work means a clear,
deliberate and un-ustifed refusal of an emplo"ee to resume his
emplo"ment and a clear intention to sever the emplo"er;emplo"ee
relationship %bandonment is incompatible with constructive
dismissal
Lere absence or failure to report for work is not tantamount to
abandonment of work 6ven the failure to report for work after a
notice to return to work has been served does not necessaril"
constitute abandonment nor does it bar reinstatement
%n emplo"er has the prerogative to transfer and reassign its
emplo"ees to meet the re.uirements of its business
2:
:or instance,
where the rotation of emplo"ees from the da" shift to the night shift
was a standard operating procedure of management, an emplo"ee
who had been on the da" shift for sometime ma" be transferred to the
night shift $imilarl", transfers can be eAected pursuant to a company
policy to transfer emplo"ees from one place of work to another place
of work owned b" the emplo"er to prevent connivance among them
Likewise, an emplo"er has the right to transfer an emplo"ee to
another oDce in the e,ercise of what it took to be sound business
-udgment and in accordance with pre-determined and established
oce policy and practice !n securit" services, the transfer connotes a
changing of guards or e,change of their posts, or their reassignment
to other posts Cowever, all are considered given their respective
posts
0he prerogative of the management to transfer its emplo"ees must
be e,ercised without grave abuse of discretion 0he e,ercise of the
prerogative should not defeat an emplo"ee2s right to securit" of
tenure !he employer"s pri#ilege to transfer its employees to di$erent
wor%stations cannot be used as a subterfuge to rid itself of an
undesirable wor%er
&&
15ilippine #irele"" , 'nc. v. NLRC
+i"mi""al is +an involuntar" resignation resorted to when
continued emplo"ment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikel"3 when there is a demotion in rank andFor a diminution in pa"3
or when a clear discrimination, insensibilit" or disdain b" an emplo"er
becomes unbearable to the emplo"ee7
Foluntary re"ignation is defned as the act of an emplo"ee who
+fnds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons
cannot be sacrifced in favor of the e,igenc" of the service and he has
no other choice but to disassociate himself from his emplo"ment7
0here is no demotion where there is no reduction in position, rank or
salar" as a result of such transfer
Globe -elecom v. Cri"ologo
Re"ignation is the voluntar" act of an emplo"ee who fnds herself
in a situation where she believes that personal reasons cannot be
sacrifced in favor of the e,igenc" of the service and that she has no
other choice but to disassociate herself from emplo"ment
rt. 9B:
Lope% v. Nat6l Steel Corp.
:or an emplo"ee to validl" claim retirement benefts under %rt &=>
of the Labor Code, petitioner must have complied with the
re.uirements for eligibilit" under the statute for such retirement
benefts
No retirement benefts are pa"able in instances of resignations or
termination for a cause
rt. 94C
Callanta v. Carnation 15ilippine", 'nc.
0he dismissal without -ust cause of an emplo"ee from his
emplo"ment constitutes a violation of the Labor Code and its
implementing rules and regulations $uch violation, however, does not
amount to an +oAense7 as understood under %rticle &(1 of the Labor
Code !n its broad sense, an oAense is an illegal act which does not
amount to a crime as defned in the penal law, but which b" statute
carries with it a penalt" similar to those imposed b" law for the
punishment of a crime !t is in this sense that a general penalt" clause
is provided under %rticle &=( of the Labor Code which provides that
+ an" violation of the provisions of this code declared to be unlawful
or penal in nature shall be punished with a fne of not less than @ne
0housand Besos NB1,99999O nor more than 0en 0housand Besos
N19,99999O, or imprisonment of not less than three N4O months nor
more than three N4O "ears, or both such fne and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court7
#nlike in cases of commission of an" of the prohibited activities
during strikes or lockouts under %rticle &85, unfair labor practices
under %rticle &'=, &'( and &59 and illegal recruitment activities under
%rticle 4=, among others, which the Code itself declares to be
unlawful, termination of an emplo"ment without -ust or valid cause is
not categorized as an unlawful practice
0he reliefs principall" sought b" an emplo"ee who was illegall"
dismissed from his emplo"ment are reinstatement to his former
position without loss of seniorit" rights and privileges, if an",
backwages and damages, in case there is bad faith in his dismissal %s
an aDrmative relief, reinstatement ma" be ordered, with or without
backwages /hile ordinaril", reinstatement is a concomitant of
backwages, the two are not necessaril" complements, nor is the
award of one a condition precedent to an award of the other %nd, in
proper cases, backwages ma" be awarded without ordering
reinstatement !n either case, no penalt" of fne nor imprisonment is
imposed on the emplo"er upon a fnding of illegalit" in the dismissal
<" the ver" nature of the reliefs sought, therefore, an action for illegal
dismissal cannot be generall" categorized as an +oAense7 as used
under %rticle &(1 of the Labor Code
<ackwwages sought b" an illegall" dismissed emplo"ee ma" be
considered, b" reason of its practical eAect, as a +mone" claim7
Cowever, it is not the principal cause of action in an illegal dismissal
case but the unlawful deprivation of the one2s emplo"ment committed
b" the emplo"er in violation of the right of an emplo"ee <ackwages is
merel" one of the reliefs which an illegall" dismissed emplo"ee pra"s
the labor arbiter and the NLRC to render in his favor as a conse.uence
of the unlawful act committed b" the emplo"er 0he award thereof is
not private compensation or damages but is in furtherance and
eAectuation of the public ob-ectives of the Labor Code
prescriptive period for illegal dismissal cases? /hen one is
arbitraril" and un-ustl" deprived of his -ob or means of livelihood, the
action instituted to contest the legalit" of one2s dismissal from
emplo"ment constitutes, in essence, an action predicated +upon an
in-ur" to the rights of the plaintiA,7 as contemplated under %rt 11'8
of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four N'O "ears
&4
rt. 942
-e7on Manufacturing v. Millena
prescriptive period for mone" claims? Meneral rule? %ll mone" claims
arising from emplo"er;emplo"ee relations accruing during the
eAectivit" of this Code shall be fled within three "ears from the time
the cause of action accrued3 otherwise the" shall be forever barred
Lu!o > Luym Corp. v. Saorni!o
6,ception? !f complainant;emplo"ee2s cause of action has not "et
accrued, as when negotiations are still ongoing, then the 4;"ear
prescriptive period does not set
&'

Case Doctrines in Labor Relations: Kiok Loy v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Doctrines in Labor Relations: Kiok Loy v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Doctrines in Labor Relations

Kiok Loy v. NLRC

You might also like