You are on page 1of 33

Labor Law


Estrellita G. Salazar vs Philippine Duplicators, Inc, G.R. No. 154628 December 6, 2006
The constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor is not meant to be a sword to oppress
employers. The commitment under the fundamental law is that the cause of labor does not
prevent us from sustaining the employer when the law is clearly on its side.
People of the Philippines vs. Teresita Tessie Laogo. G.R. No. 176264 January 10, 2011
Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken by
non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. When the
illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it
is deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a
form of economic sabotage. But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused,
without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the
power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with
their money in order to be employed. It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer
of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.
August 5, 2014
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., this court ruled
that the clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" is
unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and substantive due process.
A statute or provision which was declared unconstitutional is not a law. It "confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not
been passed at all."
When a law or a provision of law is null because it is inconsistent with the Constitution, the
nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or
provision. A law or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional remains as such
unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant a reverse conclusion.
Sycip, Gorres, Velayo & Company vs. Carol De Raedt. G.R. No. 161366; June 16, 2009
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law has consistently
applied the four-fold test, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the
payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employers power to control the
employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The so-called "control
test" is the most important indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee

Labor Law

Manila Water Company, Inc. vs. Jose J. Dalumpines. G.R. No. 175501; October 4, 2010
It should be remembered that the control test merely calls for the existence of the right to control,
and not necessarily the exercise thereof. It is not essential that the employer actually supervises
the performance of duties of the employee. It is enough that the former has a right to wield the
Macarthur Malicdem and Hermenigildo Flores vs. Marulas Industrial Corporation. G.R.
No. 204406; February 26, 2014
The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between
the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the
KASAMMA-CCO v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 159828; April 19, 2006
A casual employee is only casual for one year, and it is the passage of time that gives him a
regular status.
Jose Y. Sonza vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004
Television-radio talent is not an employee. Relationship of a big name talent and a televisionradio broadcasting company is one of an independent contracting arrangement. ABS-CBN
engaged Sonzas services specifically to co-host the "Mel & Jay" programs. ABS-CBN did not
assign any other work to Sonza. To perform his work, Sonza only needed his skills and talent.
How Sonza delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside ABSCBNs control. Sonza did not have to render eight hours of work per day. The Agreement
required Sonza to attend only rehearsals and tapings of the shows, as well as pre- and postproduction staff meetings. ABS-CBN could not dictate the contents of Sonzas script.
Gapayao v Fulo, et al., G.R. No. 193493 (2013)
Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. The Court has
consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular
seasonal employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship
with the employer is such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but
reemployed during the summer season or when their services may be needed. They are in
regular employment because of the nature of their job, and not because of the length of time they
have worked.
This rule, however, is not absolute. Seasonal workers who have worked for one season only may
not be considered regular employees. Also when seasonal employees are free to contract their
services with other farm owners, then the former are not regular employees. For regular
employees to be considered as such, the primary standard used is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity they perform and the usual trade or business of the employer.

Labor Law

FVR Skills and Services Exponents, Inc. (SKILLEX), et al. v. Jovert Seva, et al., G.R. No.
200857, October 22, 2014
For an employee to be validly categorized as a project employee, it is necessary that the specific
project or undertaking had been identified and its period and completion date determined and
made known to the employee at the time of his engagement. This provision ensures that the
employee is completely apprised of the terms of his hiring and the corresponding rights and
obligations arising from his undertaking. Notably, the petitioner's service contract with
Robinsons was from January 1 to December 31, 2008. The respondents were only asked to sign
their employment contracts for their deployment with Robinsons halfway through 2008, when
the petitioner's service contract was about to expire.
Under Article 1390 of the Civil Code, contracts where the consent of a party was vitiated by
mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud, are voidable or annullable. The
petitioner's threat of nonpayment of the respondents' salaries clearly amounted to intimidation.
Under this situation, and the suspect timing when these contracts were executed, we rule that
these employment contracts were voidable and were effectively questioned when the respondents
filed their illegal dismissal complaint. Respondents are thus regular employees.
Pasos v Philippine National Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 192394 (2013)
Project employee is deemed regularized if services are extended without specifying duration.
While for first three months, petitioner can be considered a project employee of PNCC, his
employment thereafter, when his services were extended without any specification of as to the
duration, made him a regular employee of PNCC. And his status as a regular employee was not
affected by the fact that he was assigned to several other projects and there were intervals in
between said projects since he enjoys security of tenure.
Alcatel Phils. vs Relos, G.R. No. 164315. July 3, 2009
However, a project or work pool employee who has been continuously rehired by the same
employer for the same tasks that are necessary to the usual business of the employer must be
deemed a regular employee.
Fuji Television Network, Inc. v Arlene S. Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, 03 December 2014
An employee can be a regular employee with a fixed-term contract. The law does not preclude
the possibility that a regular employee may opt to have a fixed-term contract for valid reasons.
This was recognized in Brent: For as long as it was the employee who requested, or bargained,
that the contract have a definite date of termination, or that the fixed-term contract be freely
entered into by the employer and the employee, then the validity of the fixed-term contract will
be upheld.
GMA Network, Inc. v Pabriga, et al., G.R. No. 176419 (2013)

Labor Law
Petitioners allegation that respondents were merely substitutes or what they call pinch-hitters
(which means that they were employed to take the place of regular employees of petitioner who
were absent or on leave) does not change the fact that their jobs cannot be considered projects
within the purview of the law. Every industry, even public offices, has to deal with securing
substitutes for employees who are absent or on leave. Such tasks, whether performed by the
usual employee or by a substitute, cannot be considered separate and distinct from the other
undertakings of the company. While it is managements prerogative to device a method to deal
with this issue, such prerogative is not absolute and is limited to systems wherein employees are
not ingeniously and methodically deprived of their constitutionally protected right to security of
Avelino Lambo vs NLRC. G.R. No. 111042 October 26, 1999
There is no dispute that petitioners were employees of private respondents although they were
paid not on the basis of time spent on the job but according to the quantity and the quality of
work produced by them. There are two categories of employees paid by results: (1) those whose
time and performance are supervised by the employer. (Here, there is an element of control and
supervision over the manner as to how the work is to be performed. A piece-rate worker belongs
to this category especially if he performs his work in the company premises.); and (2) those
whose time and performance are unsupervised. (Here, the employers control is over the result of
the work. Workers on pakyao and takay basis belong to this group.) Both classes of workers are
paid per unit accomplished. Piece-rate payment is generally practiced in garment factories where
work is done in the company premises, while payment on pakyao and takay basis is commonly
observed in the agricultural industry, such as in sugar plantations where the work is performed in
bulk or in volumes difficult to quantify. Petitioners belong to the first category, i.e., supervised
PCL Shipping Philippine, Inc. and U-Ming Marine Transport Corporation, vs NLRC. G.R.
No. 153031,December 14, 2006
With respect, however, to the award of overtime pay, the correct criterion in determining
whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not whether they were on board and cannot
leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but whether they actually rendered
service in excess of said number of hours. In the present case, the Court finds that private
respondent is not entitled to overtime pay because he failed to present any evidence to prove that
he rendered service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day.
Bisig Manggawa sa Tryco, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 151309 October 15, 2008
D.O. No. 21 sanctions the waiver of overtime pay in consideration of the benefits that the
employees will derive from the adoption of a compressed workweek scheme, thus:The
compressed workweek scheme was originally conceived for establishments wishing to save on
energy costs, promote greater work efficiency and lower the rate of employee absenteeism,
among others. Workers favor the scheme considering that it would mean savings on the
increasing cost of transportation fares for at least one (1) day a week; savings on meal and snack
expenses; longer weekends, or an additional 52 off-days a year, that can be devoted to rest,

Labor Law
leisure, family responsibilities, studies and other personal matters, and that it will spare them for
at least another day in a week from certain inconveniences that are the normal incidents of
employment, such as commuting to and from the workplace, travel time spent, exposure to dust
and motor vehicle fumes, dressing up for work, etc. Thus, under this scheme, the generally
observed workweek of six (6) days is shortened to five (5) days but prolonging the working
hours from Monday to Friday without the employer being obliged for pay overtime premium
compensation for work performed in excess of eight (8) hours on weekdays, in exchange for the
benefits abovecited that will accrue to the employees. Moreover, the adoption of a compressed
workweek scheme in the company will help temper any inconvenience that will be caused the
petitioners by their transfer to a farther workplace.
Rosario A. Gaa vs CA G.R. No. L-44169 Dec. 3, 1985
The term "wages" differs from the term "salary." Wages apply to compensation for manual labor,
skilled or unskilled, paid at stated times and measured by the day, week, month or season; while
salary denotes a higher grade of employment or a superior grade of services and implies a
position or office. By contrast, the term "wages" indicates a considerable pay for a lower and less
responsible character of employment, while "salary" is suggestive of a larger and more important
The distinction between salary and wage in Gaa vs CA was only for the purpose of Art. 1708 of
the Civil Code which provides that "the laborers' wage shall not be subject to execution or
attachment except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing, and medical attendance.
Our Haus Realty Development Corporation v. Alexander Parian, et al., G.R. No. 204651,
06 August 2014
The benefit or privilege given to the employee which constitutes an extra remuneration above
and over his basic or ordinary earning or wage is supplement; and when said benefit or privilege
is part of the laborers' basic wages, it is a facility. The distinction lies not so much in the kind of
benefit or item (food, lodging, bonus or sick leave) given, but in the purpose for which it is
given. In the case at bench, the items provided were given freely by SLL for the purpose of
maintaining the efficiency and health of its workers while they were working at their respective
Ultimately, the real difference lies not on the kind of the benefit but on the purpose why it was
given by the employer. If it is primarily for the employees gain, then the benefit is a facility; if
its provision is mainly for the employers advantage, then it is a supplement. Again, this is to
ensure that employees are protected in circumstances where the employer designates a benefit as
deductible from the wages even though it clearly works to the employers greater convenience or
Under the purpose test, substantial consideration must be given to the nature of the employers
business in relation to the character or type of work performed by the employees involved.
Bluer Than Blue Joint Ventures Company v Glyza Esteban, G.R. No. 192582, 7 April 2014

Labor Law

The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, meanwhile, provides:

SECTION 14. Deduction for loss or damage. - Where the employer is engaged in a
trade, occupation or business where the practice of making deductions or requiring
deposits is recognized to answer for the reimbursement of loss or damage to tools,
materials, or equipment supplied by the employer to the employee, the employer may
make wage deductions or require the employees to make deposits from which
deductions shall be made, subject to the following conditions:
(a) That the employee concerned is clearly shown to be responsible for the loss or
(b) That the employee is given reasonable opportunity to show cause why deduction
should not be made;
(c) That the amount of such deduction is fair and reasonable and shall not exceed the
actual loss or damage; and
(d) That the deduction from the wages of the employee does not exceed 20 percent of
the employee's wages in a week.
Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that Esteban was responsible for the negative variance it
had in its sales for the year 2005 to 2006 and that Esteban was given the opportunity to show
cause why the deduction from her last salary should not be made. The Court cannot accept the
petitioners statement that it is the practice in the retail industry to deduct variances from an
employees salary, without more.
Lilia P. Labadan vs. Forest Hills Academy. G.R. No. 172295 December 23, 2008
Respecting petitioners claim for holiday pay, Forest Hills contends that petitioner failed to prove
that she actually worked during specific holidays. Article 94 of the Labor Code provides,
however, that(a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays,
except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers; (b)
The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee shall be paid
a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate.The provision that a worker is entitled to
twice his regular rate if he is required to work on a holiday implies that the provision entitling a
worker to his regular rate on holidays applies even if he does not work.
BPI Employees union-Davao City-FUBU v Bank of the Philippine Islands, et al., G.R. No.
174912 (2013)
Contracting out of services is not illegal per se. It is an exercise of business judgment or
management prerogative. Absent proof that the management acted in a malicious or arbitrary
manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer. BPIs policy
of contracting out cashiering and bookkeeping services was considered as a valid exercise of
management prerogative which is further authorized by the Central Bank in CBP Circular No.
1388, Series of 199.

Labor Law
Central Azucarera De Tarlac vs. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor Union-NLU. G.R.
No. 188949, July 26, 2010
Article 100 of the Labor Code, otherwise known as the Non-Diminution Rule, mandates that
benefits given to employees cannot be taken back or reduced unilaterally by the employer
because the benefit has become part of the employment contract, written or unwritten. The rule
against diminution of benefits applies if it is shown that the grant of the benefit is based on an
express policy or has ripened into a practice over a long period of time and that the practice is
consistent and deliberate. Nevertheless, the rule will not apply if the practice is due to error in the
construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law. But even in cases of error, it
should be shown that the correction is done soon after discovery of the error.
Netlink Computer Incorporated v Eric Delmo, G.R. No. 160827, 18 June 2014
With regard to the length of time the company practice should have been observed to constitute a
voluntary employer practice that cannot be unilaterally reduced, diminished, discontinued or
eliminated by the employer, we find that jurisprudence has not laid down any rule requiring a
specific minimum number of years. In Davao Fruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions, the
company practice lasted for six years. In Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services v.
Abarquez, the employer, for three years and nine months, approved the commutation to cash of
the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits of its intermittent workers. In Tiangco
v. Leogardo, Jr., the employer carried on the practice of giving a fixed monthly emergency
allowance from November 1976 to February 1980, or three years and four months. In Sevilla
Trading Company v. Semana, the employer kept the practice of including non-basic benefits
such as paid leaves for unused sick leave and vacation in the computation of their 13th-month
pay for at least two years.
With the payment of US dollar commissions having ripened into a company practice, there is no
way that the commissions due to Delmo were to be paid in US dollars or their equivalent in
Philippine currency determined at the time of the sales. To rule otherwise would be to cause an
unjust diminution of the commissions due and owing to Delmo.
Bankard Employees Union-Workers Alliance Trade Unions vs NLRC. G.R. No. 140689
February 17, 2004
Even assuming that there is a decrease in the wage gap between the pay of the old employees and
the newly hired employees, to Our mind said gap is not significant as to obliterate or result in
severe contraction of the intentional quantitative differences in the salary rates between the
employee group. As already stated, the classification under the wage structure is based on the
rank of an employee, not on seniority. For this reason, ,wage distortion does not appear to exist.
Rogelio Reyes vs NLRC. G.R. No. 160233, August 8, 2007
Under the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree 851, the following
compensations are deemed not part of the basic salary:

Labor Law
a) Cost-of-living allowances granted pursuant to Presidential Decree 525 and Letter of
Instruction No. 174;b) Profit sharing payments;c) All allowances and monetary benefits which
are not considered or integrated as part of the regular basic salary of the employee at the time of
the promulgation of the Decree on December 16, 1975.
Producers Bank v. NLRC. G.R. No. 100701. March 28, 2001
Bonus is not demandable as a matter of right. It is a management prerogative, given in addition
to what is ordinarily received by or strictly due to the recipient.
Philipiine Telegraph vs. Laplana. G.R. No. 76645; July 23, 1991
It is the employers prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its employees
qualifications, aptitudes, and competence, to move them around in the various areas of its
business operations in order to ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit to the
company. When an employees transfer is not unreasonable, nor inconvenient or prejudicial to
him, and it does not involve a demotion in rank or diminution of his salaries, benefits and other
privileges, the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal.
UE v. PEPANIO, G.R. No. 193897, January 23, 2013
The requirement of a masteral degree for tertiary education teachers is not unreasonable. The
operation of educational institutions involves public interest. The government has a right to
ensure that only qualified persons, in possession of sufficient academic knowledge and teaching
skills, are allowed to teach in such institutions. Government regulation in this field of human
activity is desirable for protecting, not only the students, but the public as well from ill-prepared
teachers, who are lacking in the required scientific or technical knowledge. They may be
required to take an examination or to possess postgraduate degrees as prerequisite to
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 125792; November 9, 1998
In legitimate job contracting, no employer-employee relation exists between the principal and the
job contractor's employees. The principal is responsible to the job contractor's employees only
for the proper payment of wages. But in labor-only contracting, an employer-employee relation
is created by law between the principal and the labor-only contractor's employees, such that the
former is responsible to such employees, as if he or she had directly employed them
Vigilla, et al. v Philippine College of Criminology, Inc., G.R. No. 200094 (2013)
In legitimate job contracting, the principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with
the job contractor only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to
pay the same. On the other hand, in labor-only contracting, the principal employer becomes
solidarily liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees. In this
case, the releases, waivers and quitclaims executed by employees in favor of the labor-only
contractor redounded to the benefit of the principal.

Labor Law

San Miguel Corp. vs. MAERC Integrated Systems. G.R. No. 144672; July 10, 2003
The employer is deemed the direct employer and is made liable to the employees of the
contractor for a more comprehensive purpose (wages, monetary claims, and all other benefits in
the Labor Code such as SSS/Medicare/Pag-Ibig). The labor-only contractor is deemed merely an
agent. A finding that a contractor is a labor-only contractor is equivalent to declaring that there
is an ER-EE relationship between the principal and the employees of the labor-only contractor.
Cheryll Santos Leus v St. Scholasticas College Westgrove, et al., G.R. No. 187226, 28
January 2015
That an employee was employed by a Catholic educational institution per se does not absolutely
determine whether her pregnancy out of wedlock is disgraceful or immoral. There is still a
necessity to determine whether the petitioners pregnancy out of wedlock is considered
disgraceful or immoral in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct. To stress, premarital sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no impediment to marry each
other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and
secular view of morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral conduct under Section
94(e) of the 1992 MRPS.
Duncan vs. Glaxo Wellcome. G.R. No. 162994; September 17, 2004
Prohibition of marriage or existing or future relationships between employees of competing
companies is not violative of the equal protection clause.
Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. v National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No.
200575 (2014)
Cabiles contention that his employment with Intel HK is a continuation of his service with Intel
Phil alleging that it was but an assignment by his principal employer, similar to his assignments
to Intel Arizona and Intel Chengdu is untenable.
Eugene Arabit, et al. v Jardine Pacific Finance, Inc., G.R. No. 181719, 21 April 2014
It is illogical for Jardine to terminate the petitioners employment and replace them with
contractual employees. The replacement effectively belies Jardines claim that the petitioners
positions were abolished due to superfluity. Redundancy could have been justified if the
functions of the petitioners were transferred to other existing employees of the company.
To dismiss the petitioners and hire new contractual employees as replacements necessarily give
rise to the sound conclusion that the petitioners services have not really become in excess of
what Jardines business requires. To replace the petitioners who were all regular employees with
contractual ones would amount to a violation of their right to security of tenure.
Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. vs. Bardaje, G.R. No. 170811; April 24, 2007

Labor Law

Although fighting within company premises may constitute serious misconduct (possible ground
for disciplinary actions), not every fight with in company premises in which an employee is
involved automatically warrant dismissal from service.
Punzal vs. ETSI Technologies. G.R. No. 170384-85. March 9, 2007
Halloween invitation sent out by employee for office trick-or-treating without clearance from
higher management is considered misbehavior. The circumstances in the case were differentiated
from Samson vs. NLRC where the offensive remarks were verbally made during informal
Christmas gathering.
Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc. v. Virginia E. Pacia, March 2011
Petitioner employer ordered the respondent employee to prepare checks for payment of
petitioners obligations. Respondent did not immediately comply with the instruction since
petitioner employer had no sufficient funds to cover the checks. Petitioner employer dismissed
respondent employee for willful disobedience. The Court held that respondent employee was
illegally dismissed. Though there is nothing unlawful in the directive of petitioner employer to
prepare checks in payment of petitioners obligations, respondent employees initial reluctance to
prepare the checks, although seemingly disrespectful and defiant, was for honest and well
intentioned reasons. Protecting the petitioner employer from liability under the Bouncing Checks
Law was foremost in her mind. It was not wrongful or willful. Neither can it be considered an
obstinate defiance of company authority. The Court took into consideration that respondent
employee, despite her initial reluctance, eventually did prepare the checks on the same day she
was tasked to do it.
Gonzales vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 131653; March 26, 2001
The act constituting the breach must be work-related such as would show the employee
concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.
Jardine Davies vs. NLRC. G.R. No. 106915; August 31, 1993
For abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination of employment there must be a
deliberate unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment. This refusal must be
clearly shown. Mere absence is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by overt acts pointing to
the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore.
SME Bank, Inc., et al. v De Guzman, et al., G.R. No. 184517 (2013)
While resignation letters containing words of gratitude may indicate that the employees were not
coerced into resignation, this fact alone is not conclusive proof that they intelligently, freely and
voluntarily resigned. To rule that resignation letters couched in terms of gratitude are, by
themselves, conclusive proof that the employees intended to relinquish their posts would open
the floodgates to possible abuse. In order to withstand the test of validity, resignations must be
made voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing the office, coupled with an act of

Labor Law
relinquishment. Therefore, in order to determine whether the employees truly intended to resign
from their respective posts, we cannot merely rely on the tenor of the resignation letters, but must
take into consideration the totality of circumstances in each particular case.
Sanoh Fulton Phils., Inc., et al. v Bernardo, et al., G.R. No. 187214 (2013)
A lull caused by lack of orders or shortage of materials must be of such nature as would severely
affect the continued business operations of the employer to the detriment of all and sundry if not
properly addressed. Sanoh asserts that cancelled orders of wire condensers led to the phasing out
of the Wire Condenser Department, which triggered retrenchment. Sanoh presented the letters of
cancellation given by Matsushita and Sanyo as evidence of cancelled orders. The evidence
presented by Sanoh barely established the connection between the cancelled orders and the
projected business losses that may be incurred by Sanoh.
Hocheng Philippines Corporation v Antonio M. Farrales, G.R. No. 211497, 18 March 2015
Theft committed by an employee against a person other than his employer, if proven by
substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to serious misconduct. The misconduct to be serious
must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such
misconduct, however serious, must, nevertheless, be in connection with the employees work to
constitute just cause for his separation.
Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. v Janrie C. Dailig, G.R. No. 204761, 2
April 2014
A floating status of a security guard for more than six months constitutes constructive dismissal.
The temporary inactivity or "floating status" of security guards should continue only for six
months. Otherwise, the security agency concerned could be liable for constructive dismissal. The
failure of petitioner to give respondent a work assignment beyond the reasonable six-month
period makes it liable for constructive dismissal.
Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation and/or Ma. Teresa Marcelo v Armando D.
Serrano, G.R. No. 198538, 29 September 2014
It is manifestly unfair and unacceptable to immediately declare the mere lapse of the six-month
period of floating status as a case of constructive dismissal, without looking into the peculiar
circumstances that resulted in the security guards failure to assume another post. This is
especially true in the present case where the security guards own refusal to accept a non-VIP
detail was the reason that he was not given an assignment within the six-month period. The
security agency, Exocet, should not then be held liable for constructive dismissal.
Philippine Sheet Metal Workers Union vs. CIR. G.R. No. L-2028; April 28, 1949
Reduction of the number of workers in a companys factory made necessary by the introduction
of machinery in the manufacture of its products is justified. There can be no question as to the

Labor Law
right of the manufacturer to use new labor-saving devices with a view to effecting more
economy and efficiency in its method of production.
Oriental Petroleum & Minerals Corp. vs. Fuentes. G.R. No. 151818. October 14, 2005
Standards to Justify Retrenchment:
1. The losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent;
2. The substantial loss apprehended must be reasonably imminent. It be reasonably
necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected losses;
3. The employer should have taken other measures prior or parallel to retrenchment to
forestall losses;
4. The alleged losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses must be proved
by sufficient and convincing evidence.
BPI v. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION DAVAO, G.R. No. 164301, October 19, 2011
By upholding the automatic assumption of the non-surviving corporations existing employment
contracts by the surviving corporation in a merger, the Court strengthens judicial protection of
the right to security of tenure of employees affected by a merger and avoids confusion regarding
the status of their various benefits which were among the chief objections of our dissenting
colleagues. However, nothing in this Resolution shall impair the right of an employer to
terminate the employment of the absorbed employees for a lawful or authorized cause or the
right of such an employee to resign, retire or otherwise sever his employment, whether before or
after the merger, subject to existing contractual obligations. In this manner, Justice Brions
theory of automatic assumption may be reconciled with the majoritys concerns with the
successor employers prerogative to choose its employees and the prohibition against involuntary
King of Kings Transport vs. Mamac. G.R. No. 166208. June 29, 2007
In order to intelligently prepare the employees for their explanation and defenses, the notice
should contain a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as the basis for
the charge against the employee a general description of the change will not suffice.
Esguerra vs. Valle Verde Country Club. G.R. No. 173012. June 13, 2012
The law does not require that an intention to terminate ones employment should be included in
the first notice. It is enough that employees are properly apprised of the charges brought against
them so they can properly prepare their defenses; it is only during the second notice that the
intention to terminate ones employment should be explicitly stated
Lavador vs. J Marketing Corporation and Soyao. G.R. No. 157757; June 28, 2005
A hearing or conference should be held during which the employee concerned, with the
assistance of counsel, if the employee so desires, is given the opportunity to respond to the
charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him.

Labor Law

AGABON v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004

The violation of the petitioners right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants
the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.
Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at
P30,000.00. We believe this form of damages would serve to deter employers from future
violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. At the very least, it provides a
vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter under the Labor Code
and its Implementing Rules.
Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot. G.R. No. 151378.March 28, 2005
If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer failed to comply with
the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed upon him should be tempered because the
dismissal process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee. On the other
hand, if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed
to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal
process was initiated by the employers exercise of his management prerogative.
Tangga-an v Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 180636 (2013)
Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that an employees full backwages shall be inclusive of
allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent. It is the obligation of the employer to
pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the whole amount of the salaries or wages, plus
all other benefits and bonuses and general increases, to which he would have been normally
entitled had he not been dismissed and had not stopped working.
Reyes, et al. v RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc., G.R. No 193756 (2013)
Backwages and reinstatement are separate and distinct reliefs given to an illegally dismissed
employee in order to alleviate the economic damage brought about by the employees dismissal.
Reinstatement is a restoration to a state from which one has been removed or separated while
the payment of backwages is a form of relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of
the unlawful dismissal. Therefore, the award of one does not bar the other.
Crisanto F. Castro, Jr. vs Ateneo De Naga University, et al., G.R. No. 175293, 23 July 2014
The Court holds that the order of reinstatement of the petitioner was not rendered moot and
academic. He remained entitled to accrued salaries from notice of the LA's order of reinstatement
until reversal thereof. In Islriz Trading v. Capada, we even clarified that the employee could be
barred from claiming accrued salaries only when the failure to reinstate him was without the
fault of the employer.

Labor Law
Considering that the respondents reinstated the petitioner only in November 2002, and that their
inability to reinstate him was without valid ground, they were liable to pay his salaries accruing
from the time of the decision of the LA (i.e., September 3, 2001) until his reinstatement in
November 2002. It did not matter that the respondents had yet to exercise their option to choose
between actual or payroll reinstatement at that point because the order of reinstatement was
immediately executory.
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Reynaldo V. Paz, G.R. No. 192924, 26 November 2014
The rule is that the employee is entitled to reinstatement salaries notwithstanding the reversal of
the LA decision granting him said relief. The test is two-fold: (1) there must be actual delay or
the fact that the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and
(2) the delay must not be due to the employers unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to
the employers unjustified refusal, the employer may still be required to pay the salaries
notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor Arbiters decision.
A scrutiny of the circumstances, however, will show that the delay in reinstating the respondent
was not due to the unjustified refusal of PAL to abide by the order but because of the constraints
of corporate rehabilitation. The inopportune event of PALs entering rehabilitation receivership
justifies the delay or failure to comply with the reinstatement order of the LA. In light of the fact
that PALs failure to comply with the reinstatement order was justified by the exigencies of
corporation rehabilitation, the respondent may no longer claim salaries which he should have
received during the period that the LA decision ordering his reinstatement is still pending appeal
until it was overturned by the NLRC.
Globe Mackay v. NLRC. G.R. No. 82511; March 3, 1992
When the employer can no longer trust the employee and vice-versa, or there were imputations
of bad faith to each other, reinstatement could not effectively serve as a remedy. This doctrine
applies only to positions which require trust and confidence.
Wenphil Corporation vs. Abing, G.R. No. 207983, 7 April 2014
Even outside the theoretical trappings of the discussion and into the mundane realities of human
experience, the "refund doctrine" easily demonstrates how a favorable decision by the Labor
Arbiter could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. The employee, to make both ends
meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received during the pendency of the appeal,
only to end up having to refund the sum in case of a final unfavorable decision. It is mirage of a
stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of insolvency.
Unilever Philippines v Rivera, G.R. No. 201701 (2013)
As a general rule, an employee who has been dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated
under Article 282 of the Labor Code is not entitled to a separation pay. In exceptional cases,
however, the Court has granted separation pay to a legally dismissed employee as an act of
social justice or on equitable grounds. In both instances, it is required that the dismissal (1)

Labor Law
was not for serious misconduct; and (2) did not reflect on the moral character of the employee. In
this case, the transgressions were serious offenses that warranted employees dismissal from
employment. Hence, employee is not entitled to separation pay.
Agricultural and Industrial Supplies Corp. et al vs. Jueber P. Siazar, G.R. No. 177970
August 25, 2010
In awarding separation pay to an illegally dismissed employee, in lieu of reinstatement, the
amount to be awarded shall be equivalent to one month salary for every year of service reckoned
from the first day of employment until the finality of the decision. Payment of separation pay is
in addition to payment of backwages. And if separation pay is awarded instead of reinstatement,
backwages shall be computed from the time of illegal termination up to the finality of the
Zenaida Paz v Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 199554, 18 February
The award of financial assistance to an employee who rendered almost three decades of
dedicated service to an employer without a single transgression or malfeasance of any company
rule or regulation, coupled with her old age and infirmity which now weaken her chances of
employment is justified and allowed under special circumstances. These circumstances
indubitably merit equitable concessions, via the principle of compassionate justice for the
working class.
Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative Inc. vs NLRC. G.R. No. 163561, July 24, 2007
Although long years of service might generally be considered for the award of separation
benefits or some form of financial assistance to mitigate the effects of termination, this case is
not the appropriate instance for generosity under the Labor Code nor under our prior decisions.
The fact that private respondent served petitioner for more than twenty years with no negative
record prior to his dismissal, in our view of this case, does not call for such award of benefits,
since his violation reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty and worse, betrayal of the company. If an
employees length of service is to be regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of
dismissal, such gesture will actually become a prize for disloyalty, distorting the meaning of
social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of undesirables.

Conrado A. Lim v. HMR Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 201483, 04 August 2014
No essential change is being made (in a final judgment) by a recomputation because such is a
necessary consequence which flows from the nature of the illegality of the dismissal. To
reiterate, a recomputation, or an original computation, if no previous computation was made, as
in the present case, is a part of the law that is read into the decision, namely, Article 279 of the
Labor Code and established jurisprudence. Article 279 provides for the consequences of illegal
dismissal, one of which is the payment of full backwages until actual reinstatement, qualified

Labor Law
only by jurisprudence when separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is allowed, where the finality
of the illegal dismissal decision instead becomes the reckoning point.
The nature of an illegal dismissal case requires that backwages continue to add on until full
satisfaction. The computation required to reflect full satisfaction does not constitute an alteration
or amendment of the final decision being implemented as the illegal dismissal ruling stands.
Thus, in the present case, a computation of backwages until actual reinstatement is not a
violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments.
Zuellig Pharma Corporation v Sibal, et al., G.R. NO. 173587 (2013)
In the present case, the CBA contains specific provisions which effectively bar the availment of
retirement benefits once the employees have chosen separation pay or vice versa. Section 2 of
Article XIV explicitly states that any payment of retirement gratuity shall be chargeable against
separation pay. Clearly, respondents cannot have both retirement gratuity and separation pay, as
selecting one will preclude recovery of the other. To illustrate the mechanics of how Section 2
of Article XIV bars double recovery, if the employees choose to retire, whatever amount they
will receive as retirement gratuity will be charged against the separation pay they would have
received had their separation from employment been for a cause which would entitle them to
severance pay. These causes are enumerated in Section 3, Article XIV of the CBA (i.e.,
retrenchment, closure of business, merger, redundancy, or installation of labor-saving device).
However, if the cause of the termination of their employment was any of the causes enumerated
in said Section 3, they could no longer claim retirement gratuity as the fund from which the same
would be taken had already been used in paying their separation pay. Put differently, employees
who were separated from the company cannot have both retirement gratuity and separation pay
as there is only one fund from which said benefits would be taken. Inarguably, Section 2 of
Article XIV effectively disallows recovery of both separation pay and retirement gratuity.
Consequently, respondents are entitled only to one. Since they have already chosen and accepted
redundancy pay and have executed the corresponding Release and Quitclaim, they are now
barred from claiming retirement gratuity.
Grace Christian High School, represented by its Principal, Dr. James Tan v Filipinas A.
Lavandera, G.R. No. 177845, 20 August 2014
RA 7641, which was enacted on December 9, 1992, amended Article 287 of the Labor Code,
providing for the rules on retirement pay to qualified private sector employees in the absence of
any retirement plan in the establishment. The said law states that an employees retirement
benefits under any collective bargaining [agreement (CBA)] and other agreements shall not be
less than those provided under the same that is, at least one-half () month salary for every
year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year and
that [u]nless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half () month salary shall
mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of
not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.
The foregoing provision is applicable where (a) there is no CBA or other applicable agreement
providing for retirement benefits to employees, or (b) there is a CBA or other applicable

Labor Law
agreement providing for retirement benefits but it is below the requirement set by law. Verily,
the determining factor in choosing which retirement scheme to apply is still superiority in terms
of benefits provided.
The Court, in the case of Elegir v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., has recently affirmed that one-half
() month salary means 22.5 days: 15 days plus 2.5 days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the
13th month pay and the remaining 5 days for [SIL]. The Court sees no reason to depart from
this interpretation. GCHS argument therefore that the 5 days SIL should be likewise pro-rated to
their 1/12 equivalent must fail.
Noriel R. Montierro v Rickmers Marine Agency Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 210634, January 14,
When a seafarer sustains a work-related illness or injury while on board the vessel, his fitness for
work shall be determined by the company-designated physician. The physician has 120 days, or
240 days, if validly extended, to make the assessment. If the physician appointed by the seafarer
disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, the opinion of a third doctor
may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer, whose decision shall be final and
binding on them.
Sealanes Marine Services, Inc., et al. v Arnel G. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 214132, 18 February
For the purpose of determining temporary total disability, the seafarer shall submit himself to a
post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within three working
days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated to do so, in which case, a written
notice to the agency within the same period is deemed as compliance. Failure of the seafarer to
comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to
claim the above benefits. If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a
third doctor may be agreed jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctors
decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation vs. Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, et
al., G.R. No. 162355, August 14, 2009
Article 212(g) of the Labor Code defines a labor organization as any union or association of
employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing
with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. Upon compliance with all the
documentary requirements, the Regional Office or Bureau shall issue in favor of the applicant
labor organization a certificate indicating that it is included in the roster of legitimate labor
organizations. Any applicant labor organization shall acquire legal personality and shall be
entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon
issuance of the certificate of registration.

Labor Law
T&H Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation, et al. v T&H Shopfitters
Corporation Corporation/Gin Queen Workers Union, et al., G.R. No. 191714 (2014)
The test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, is, whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may
reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees rights; and that it is not
necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by
statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that the anti-union
conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on self-organization and collective

Sta. Lucia East Commercial Corporation vs. Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment, et
al., G.R. No. 162355, August 14, 2009
A bargaining unit is a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all
of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicated to be the best
suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining
provisions of the law. The fundamental factors in determining the appropriate collective
bargaining unit are:
(1) the will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);(2) affinity and unity of the employees interest,
such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity of compensation and working
conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule);(3) prior collective bargaining history; and(4)
similarity of employment status.
Coastal Subic Bay Terminal, Inc., vs DOLE. G.R. No. 157117,November 20, 2006
Under Article 245 of the Labor Code, supervisory employees are not eligible for membership in
a labor union of rank-and-file employees. The supervisory employees are allowed to form their
own union but they are not allowed to join the rank-and-file union because of potential conflicts
of interest. Further, to avoid a situation where supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or
where the supervisors labor union would represent conflicting interests, a local supervisors
union should not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of unions of rank-and-file
employees where that federation actively participates in the union activity within the company.
Thus, the limitation is not confined to a case of supervisors wanting to join a rank-and-file union.
The prohibition extends to a supervisors local union applying for membership in a national
federation the members of which include local unions of rank-and-file employees.
San Miguel Foods, Inc. vs. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union. G.R. No.
146206. August 1, 2011
The general rule is that an employer has no standing to question the process of certification
election, since this is the sole concern of the workers. Law and policy demand that employers
take a strict, hands-off stance in certification elections. The bargaining representative of
employees should be chosen free from any extraneous influence of management. The only

Labor Law
exception is where the employer itself has to file the petition pursuant to Article 258 of the Labor
Code because of a request to bargain collectively.
Holy Child Catholic School v Hon. Sto Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 179146 (2013)
A certification election is the sole concern of the workers, except when the employer itself has to
file the petition pursuant to Article 259 of the Labor Code, as amended, but even after such filing
its role in the certification process ceases and becomes merely a bystander. The employer clearly
lacks the personality to dispute the election and has no right to interfere at all therein.
Inclusion of supervisory employees in a labor organization seeking to represent the bargaining
unit of rank-and-file employees does not divest it of its status as a legitimate labor organization.
NUWHRAIN MPHC v. SLE. G.R. No. 181531, July 31, 2009
It is well settled that under the double majority rule for there to be a valid certification
election, majority of the bargaining unit must have voted and the winning union must have
garnered majority of the valid votes cast. Following the ruling that all the probationary
employees votes should be deemed valid votes while that of the supervisory Ees should be
excluded, it follows that the number of valid votes cast would increase. Under Art. 256 of the
LC, the union obtaining the majority of the valid votes cast by the eligible voters shall be
certified as the sole exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining
unit. This majority is 50% + 1.
Benguet Consolidated Inc. v. BCI Ees and Workers Union PAFLU. G.R. No. L 24711,
April 1968
The Er cannot revoke the validly executed CB contract with their Er by the simple expedient of
changing their bargaining agent. The new agent must respect the contract. It cannot be invoked
to support the contention that a newly certified CB agent automatically assumes all the personal
undertakings of the former agent like the no strike clause in the CBA executed by the latter.
Takata Philippines Corporation vs Bureau of Labor Relations, G.R. No. 196276, 4 June
For the purpose of de-certifying a union such as respondent, it must be shown that there was
misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification; or, in connection
with the election of officers, the minutes of the election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to
submit these documents together with the list of the newly elected-appointed officers and their
postal addresses to the BLR.
The bare fact that two signatures appeared twice on the list of those who participated in the
organizational meeting would not, to our mind, provide a valid reason to cancel respondents
certificate of registration. The cancellation of a unions registration doubtless has an impairing
dimension on the right of labor to self-organization. For fraud and misrepresentation to be

Labor Law
grounds for cancellation of union registration under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud and
misrepresentation must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of a majority of
union members.
Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free workers vs. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.,
G.R. No. 190515. June 6, 2011
A local union may disaffiliate at any time from its mother federation, absent any showing that
the same is prohibited under its constitution or rules. Such disaffiliation, however, does not result
in it losing its legal personality. A local union does not owe its existence to the federation with
which it is affiliated. It is a separate and distinct voluntary association owing its creation to the
will of its members. The mere act of affiliation does not divest the local union of its own
personality, neither does it give the mother federation the license to act independently of the
local union. It only gives rise to a contract of agency where the former acts in representation of
the latter. In the present case, whether the FFW went against the will of its principal (the
member-employees) by pursuing the case despite the signing of the MOA, is not for the Court,
nor for respondent employer to determine, but for the Union and FFW to resolve on their own
pursuant to their principal-agent relationship. Moreover, the issue of disaffiliation is an intraunion dispute which must be resolved in a different forum in an action at the instance of either or
both the FFW and the union or a rival labor organization, but not the employer as in this case.
Legend International Resorts Limited v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda. G.R. No.
169754, February 23, 2011
The pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration does not preclude collective
bargaining, and that an order to hold a certification election is proper despite the pendency of the
petition for cancellation of the unions registration because at the time the respondent union filed
its petition, it still had the legal personality to perform such act absent an order cancelling its
registration. The legitimacy of the legal personality of respondent cannot be collaterally attacked
in a petition for certification election proceeding but only through a separate action instituted
particularly for the purpose of assailing it.
The Implementing Rules stipulate that a labor organization shall be deemed registered and vested
with legal personality on the date of issuance of its certificate of registration. Once a certificate
of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be subject to a collateral attack. It
may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with Section 5
Rule V, Book V of the Implementing Rules.
Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation,
G.R. No. 170007, 7 April 2014
The duty to bargain does not compel any party to accept a proposal or to make any concession.
While the purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of an agreement between the employer
and the employees union resulting in a binding contract between the parties, the failure to reach
an agreement after negotiations continued for a reasonable period does not mean lack of good

Labor Law
faith. The laws invite and contemplate a collective bargaining contract but do not compel one.
For after all, a CBA, like any contract is a product of mutual consent and not of compulsion. As
such, the duty to bargain does not include the obligation to reach an agreement.
Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing United Workers of the Phils v.
NLRC. G.R. No. 113856, Sept. 7, 1998
There is no perfect test of good faith (GF) in bargaining. The GF or BF is an inference to be
drawn from the facts and is largely a matter for the NLRCs expertise. The charge of BF should
be raised while the bargaining is in progress. With the execution of the CBA, BF can no longer
be imputed upon any of the parties thereto. All provisions in the CBA are supposed to have been
jointly and voluntarily incorporated therein by the parties. This is not a case where private
respondent exhibited an indifferent attitude towards CB because the negotiations were not the
unilateral activity of petitioner union. The CBA is good enough that private respondent exerted
reasonable effort of GF bargaining.
FVC Labor Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (FVCLUPTGWO) Vs. Sama-samang Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity of
Independent and General Labor Organization (SANAMA-FVC-SIGLO. G.R. No. 176249,
November 27, 2009
While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs original five-year term together with all other
CBA provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not carry with it a
change in the unions exclusive collective bargaining status. By express provision of the abovequoted Article 253-A, the exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years and the
representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace parties to agree upon. In other words,
despite an agreement for a CBA with a life of more than five y ears, either as an original
provision or by amendment, the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining status is effective only
for five years and can be challenged within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the CBAs
first five years.
Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Services Inc., v. Confessor. G.R. No. 111809, May 5,
The signing of the CBA does not determine whether the agreement was entered into within the 6
month period from the date of expiration of the old CBA. In the present case, there was already a
meeting of the minds between the company and the union prior to the end of the 6 month period
after the expiration of the old CBA. Hence, such meeting of the mind is sufficient to conclude
that an agreement has been reached within the 6 month period as provided under Art. 253 A of
the LC.
Teodoro S. Miranda, Jr. vs. Asian Terminals, Inc. and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174316,
June 23, 2009
A shop steward leads to the conclusion that it is a position within the union, and not within the
company. A shop steward is appointed by the union in a shop, department, or plant and serves as

Labor Law
representative of the union, charged with negotiating and adjustment of grievances of employees
with the supervisor of the employer. He is the representative of the union members in a building
or other workplace. Blacks Law Dictionary defines a shop steward as a union official elected to
represent members in a plant or particular department. His duties include collection of dues,
recruitment of new members and initial negotiations for the settlement of grievances. A
judgment of reinstatement of the petitioner to the position of union Shop Steward would have no
practical legal effect since it cannot be enforced. Based on the requirements imposed by law and
the APCWU-ATI CBA, and in the nature of things, the subsequent separation of the petitioner
from employment with respondent ATI has made his reinstatement to union Shop Steward
incapable of being enforced.
Herminigildo Inguillom, et al. vs. First Philippine Scales, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 165407, June
5, 2009
Union security is a generic term, which is applied to and comprehends closed shop, union
shop, maintenance of membership or any other form of agreement which imposes upon
employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting
employment. There is union shop when all new regular employees are required to join the union
within a certain period as a condition for their continued employment. There is maintenance of
membership shop when employees, who are union members as of the effective date of the
agreement, or who thereafter become members, must maintain union membership as a condition
for continued employment until they are promoted or transferred out of the bargaining unit or the
agreement is terminated. A closed-shop, on the other hand, may be defined as an enterprise in
which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no person
may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is,
becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union
entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part.
In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the Union Security Clause, the
employer needs only to determine and prove that:
(1) the union security clause is applicable;
(2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; and
(3) there is sufficient evidence to support the unions decision to expel the employee from the
union or company.
Standard Chartered Bank v. Confessor. G.R. No. 114974, June 16, 2004
Whether or not the union is engaged in blue sky bargaining is determined by the evidence
presented by the union as to its economic demands. Thus, if the union requires exaggerated or
unreasonable economic demands, then it is guilty of ULP. In order to be considered as unfair
labor practice, there must be proof that the demands made by the union were exaggerated or
unreasonable. In the minutes of the meeting show that the union based its economic proposals on
data of rank-and-file employees and the prevailing economic benefits received by bank
employees from other foreign banks doing business in the Philippines and other branches of the
bank in the Asian region. Hence, it cannot be said that the union was guilty of ULP for blue-sky

Labor Law

General Santos Coca Cola Plant Free Workers Union-Tupas vs. COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. G.R. No. 178647. Feb. 13, 2007
Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the workers right to organize. The prohibited
acts are related to the workers right to self-organization and to the observance of a CBA.
Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practices.
Arellano University Employees and Workers Union vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139940,
September 19, 2006
To constitute ULP, however, violations of the CBA must be gross. Gross violation of the CBA,
under Article 261 of the Labor Code, means flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the
economic provisions thereof. Evidently, the University can not be faulted for ULP as it in good
faith merely heeded the above-said request of Union members.
Salunga v. CIR. G.R. No. L 22456, Sep. 27, 1967
Labor unions are not entitled to arbitrarily exclude qualified applicants for membership and a
closed shop applicants provision will not justify the employer in discharging, or a union in
insisting upon the discharge of an employee whom the union thus refuses to admit to
membership without any reasonable ground thereof.
Phil. Can Co. v. CIR. G.R. No. L 3021, July 13, 1950
A coercive measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands. The idea behind a strike is
that a company engaged in a profitable business cannot afford to have its production or activities
interrupted, much less, paralyzed.
Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc., etc. vs. Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa HyattNational Union of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant, etc., G.R. No. 165756, June 5, 2009
The requisites for a valid strike are:
(a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the intended date thereof or 15 days in
case of ULP;(b) a strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the
bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; and
(c) a notice to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended
strike. The requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the
strike illegal.
Club Filipino, Inc., et al. v Benjamin Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 168406, January 2015
The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code states the companys counter-proposal shall be
attached to the notice of strike "as far as practicable." In this case, attaching the counter-proposal

Labor Law
of the company to the notice of strike of the union was not practicable. It was absurd to expect
the union to produce the company's counter-proposal which it did not have. Indeed, compliance
with the requirement was impossible because no counter-proposal existed at the time the union
filed a notice of strike.

NSFW vs. Ovejera. G.R. No. 59743, May 31, 1982

The cooling off period in Art. 264(c) and the 7 day strike ban after the strike vote report
prescribed in Art. 264 (f) were meant to be mandatory. The law provides that the labor union
may strike should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days
from the filing of the notice, this clearly implies that the union may not strike before the lapse
of the cooling off period. The cooling off period is for the Ministry of Labor and Employment
to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. The mandatory
character of the 7 day strike ban is manifest in the provision that in every case the union shall
furnish the MOLE with the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended strike. This
period is to give time to verify that a strike vote was actually held.
In the event the result of the strike/lockout ballot is filed within the cooling off period, the 7 day
requirement shall be counted from the day following the expiration of the cooling off period.
Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield v. Ramos. G.R. No. 113907, Feb.
28, 2000
A no strike/lockout clause is legal, but it is applicable only to economic strikes, not ULP strikes.
As a provision in the CBA, it is a valid stipulation although the clause may be invoked by an
employer (Er) only when the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force
wage or other concessions from the Er that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself. It
would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on ULP.
Interphil Laboratories Ees Union FFW v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc. G.R. No. 142824,
Dec. 19, 2001
The concept of a slowdown is a "strike on the installment plan." It is a willful reduction in the
rate of work by concerted action of workers for the purpose of restricting the output of the
employer (Er), in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which workers, without a complete
stoppage of work, retard production or their performance of duties and functions to compel
management to grant their demands. Such a slowdown is generally condemned as inherently
illicit and unjustifiable, because while the employees (Ees) "continue to work and remain at their
positions and accept the wages paid to them," they at the same time "select what part of their
allotted tasks they care to perform of their own volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the Er's
damage, to do other work;" in other words, they "work on their own terms.
Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International, et al. vs. Secretary of
Department of Labor and Employment, et al./Triumph International (phils.), Inc. vs.

Labor Law
Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International, et al., G.R. No. 167401,
July 5, 2010
The assumption of jurisdiction powers granted to the Labor Secretary under Article 263(g) is not
limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or lockout that may have preceded the strike or
lockout; nor is it limited to the incidents of the strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may have
taken place. As the term assume jurisdiction connotes, the intent of the law is to give the Labor
Secretary full authority to resolve all matters within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose
out of the strike or lockout, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive
Sarmiento v. Tuico. G.R. Nos. 75271 73, June 27, 1988
Where the return to work order is issued pending the determination of the legality of the strike, it
is not correct to say that it may be enforced only if the strike is legal and may be disregarded if
illegal. Precisely, the purpose of the return to work order is to maintain the status quo while the
determination is being made.
Manila Diamond Hotel Ees Union v. SLE, G.R. No. 140518, Dec. 16, 2004
Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement but there must be showing of special
circumstances rendering actual reinstatement impracticable, or otherwise not conducive to
attaining the purpose of the law in providing for assumption of jurisdiction by the SLE in a labor
dispute that affects the national interest.
Solid Bank Corp. Ernesto U. Gamier, et al. and Solid Bank Corp., et al. vs. Solid Bank
Union and its Dismissed Officers and Members, et al. G.R. No. 159460 and G.R. No.
159461, November 15, 2010
Under Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, a strike that is undertaken despite the
issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption order and/or certification is illegal. So is a
declaration of a strike during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike. In
the present case, there is no dispute that when respondents conducted their mass actions on April
3 to 6, 2000, the proceedings before the Secretary of Labor were still pending as both parties
filed motions for reconsideration of the March 24, 2000 Order. Clearly, respondents knowingly
violated the aforesaid provision by holding a strike in the guise of mass demonstration.
Jackbilt Industries, Inc. Vs. Jackbilt Employees Workers Union-Naflu-KMU, G.R. No.
171618-19, March 13, 2009
Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in picketing from obstructing the
free ingress to and egress from the employers premises. Since respondent was found in the July
17, 1998 decision of the NLRC to have prevented the free entry into and exit of vehicles from
petitioners compound, respondents officers and employees clearly committed illegal acts in the
course of the March 9, 1998 strike. The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike renders
such strike illegal. Therefore, pursuant to the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, the March

Labor Law
9, 1998 strike was ipso facto illegal. The filing of a petition to declare the strike illegal was thus
Yolito Fadriquelan, et al. vs. Monterey Foods Corporation/Monterey Foods Corporation v.
Bukluran ng mga Manggagawa sa Monterey-ILAW, et al., G.R. No. 178409/G.R. No.
178434, June 8, 2011
A distinction exists between the ordinary workers liability for illegal strike and that of the union
officers who participated in it. The ordinary worker cannot be terminated for merely participating
in the strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during its conduct. On the other
hand, a union officer can be terminated upon mere proof that he knowingly participated in the
illegal strike. Moreover, the participating union officers have to be properly identified. In the
present case, with respect to those union officers whose identity and participation in the strike
having been properly established, the termination was legal.
Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC. G.R. No. 86000, Sep. 21, 1990
No backwages will be awarded to union members as a penalty for their participation in the illegal
strike. As for the union officers, for knowingly participating in an illegal strike, the law mandates
that a union officer may be terminated from employment and they are not entitled to any relief.
MSF Tire & Rubber v. CA, G.R. 128632, Aug. 5, 1999
The innocent by stander must show: Compliance with the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the
Rules of Court, and That it is entirely different from, without any connection whatsoever to,
either party to the dispute and, therefore, its interests are totally foreign to the context thereof.
Victor Meteoro, et al. v. Creative Creatures, Inc. G.R No. 171275, July 13, 2009
In sum, respondent contested the findings of the labor inspector during and after the inspection
and raised issues the resolution of which necessitated the examination of evidentiary matters not
verifiable in the normal course of inspection. Hence, the Regional Director was divested of
jurisdiction and should have endorsed the case to the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the
NLRC. Considering, however, that an illegal dismissal case had been filed by petitioners wherein
the existence or absence of an employer-employee relationship was also raised, the CA correctly
ruled that such endorsement was no longer necessary.
Honda Cars Philippines, Inc. v. Honda Cars Technical Specialist and Supervisors Union,
G.R. No. 204142, 19 November 2014
The Voluntary Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to settle tax matters. The Voluntary Arbitrator has
no competence to rule on the taxability of the gas allowance and on the propriety of the
withholding of tax. These issues are clearly tax matters, and do not involve labor disputes. To be
exact, they involve tax issues within a labor relations setting as they pertain to questions of law
on the application of Section 33 (A) of the NIRC. They do not require the application of the
Labor Code or the interpretation of the MOA and/or company personnel policies.

Labor Law
The University of the Immaculate Conception, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 181146,
January 26, 2011
Article 217 of the Labor Code states that unfair labor practices and termination disputes fall
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. As an exception, under Article
262 the Voluntary Arbitrator, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other
labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. For the exception to
apply, there must be agreement between the parties clearly conferring jurisdiction to the
voluntary arbitrator. Such agreement may be stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement.
However, in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, it is enough that there is evidence
on record showing the parties have agreed to resort to voluntary arbitration.
Samar-Med Distribution v National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 162385 (2013)
The non-inclusion in the complaint of the issue of dismissal did not necessarily mean that the
validity of the dismissal could not be an issue. The rules of the NLRC require the submission of
verified position papers by the parties should they fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, and
bar the inclusion of any cause of action not mentioned in the complaint or position paper from
the time of their submission by the parties. In view of this, respondents cause of action should
be ascertained not from a reading of his complaint alone but also from a consideration and
evaluation of both his complaint and position paper.
Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd., et al. vs. Estanislao Surio, et al. G.R. No. 154213,
August 23, 2012
Although Republic Act No. 8042, through its Section 10, transferred the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide money claims involving overseas Filipino workers from the
POEA to the Labor Arbiters, the law did not remove from the POEA the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all disciplinary action cases and other special cases administrative
in character involving such workers. The obvious intent of Republic Act No. 8042 was to have
the POEA focus its efforts in resolving all administrative matters affecting and involving such
workers. The NLRC had no appellate jurisdiction to review the decision of the POEA in
disciplinary cases involving overseas contract workers.
Peoples Broadcasting Service vs. The Secretary of Labor and Employment. G.R. No.
179652, March 6, 2012
If the DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly
with the NLRC. If a complaint is filed with the DOLE, and it is accompanied by a claim for
reinstatement, the jurisdiction is properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of the Labor
Code, which provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over those
cases involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of
employment, if accompanied by a claim for reinstatement. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC,
and there is still an existing employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the
DOLE. The findings of the DOLE, however, may still be questioned through a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Labor Law

Rolando L. Cervantes vs. PAL Maritime Corporation and/or Western Shipping Agencies.
G.R. No. 175209. January 16, 2013
There was substantial compliance with the NLRC Rules of Procedure when the respondents PAL
Maritime Corporation and Western Shipping Agencies, Pte., Ltd. filed, albeit belatedly, the Joint
Declaration Under Oath, which is required when an employer appeals from the Labor Arbiters
decision granting a monetary award and posts a surety bond. Under the NLRC rules, the
following requisites are required to perfect the employers appeal: (1) it must be filed within the
reglementary period; (2) it must be under oath, with proof of payment of the required appeal fee
and the posting of a cash or surety bond; and (3) it must be accompanied by typewritten or
printed copies of the memorandum of appeal, stating the grounds relied upon, the supporting
arguments, the reliefs prayed for, and a statement of the date of receipt of the appealed decision,
with proof of service on the other party of said appeal. If the employer posts a surety bond, the
NLRC rules further require the submission by the employer, his or her counsel, and the bonding
company of a joint declaration under oath attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine and
that it shall be in effect until the final disposition of the case.
In the case at bar, the respondents posted a surety bond equivalent to the monetary award and
filed the notice of appeal and the appeal memorandum within the reglementary period. When the
NLRC subsequently directed the filing of a Joint Declaration Under Oath, the respondents
immediately complied with the said order. There was only a late submission of the Joint
Declaration. Considering that there was substantial compliance with the rules, the same may be
liberally construed. The application of technical rules may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the
demands of substantial justice.
Mcburnie v Ganzon, et al., G.R. No. 178034 (2013)
While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is subject to the conditions
that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a
reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant, otherwise the
filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
The qualification effectively requires that unless the NLRC grants the reduction of the cash bond
within the 10-day reglementary period, the employer is still expected to post the cash or surety
bond securing the full amount within the said 10-day period. If the NLRC does eventually grant
the motion for reduction after the reglementary period has elapsed, the correct relief would be to
reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by the employer within the 10-day period.
AGG Trucking and/or Alex Ang Gaeid vs. Melanio B. Yuag. G.R. No. 195033, October 12,
On the issue of the propriety of entertaining the Petition for Certiorari despite the prescribed
Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC, the SC found that the CA committed error when it
entertained the petition for certiorari and explained that when respondent failed to file a Motion
for Reconsideration of the NLRCs 30 November 2006 Resolution within the reglementary
period, the Resolution attained finality and could no longer be modified by the Court of Appeals.

Labor Law
Untimeliness in filing motions or petitions is not a mere technical or procedural defect, as
leniency regarding this requirement will impinge on the right of the winning litigant to peace of
mind resulting from the laying to rest of the controversy.
ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the
NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions
for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be initially filed
in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
appropriate forum for the relief desired.
Manila Pavilion Hotel, etc. vs. Henry Delada. G.R. No. 189947, January 25, 2011
In Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. Deputy Administrator Magsalin, the Supreme Court ruled that
the voluntary arbitrator had plenary jurisdiction and authority to interpret the agreement to
arbitrate and to determine the scope of his own authority subject only, in a proper case, to the
certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. It was also held in that case that the failure of the parties to
specifically limit the issues to that which was stated allowed the arbitrator to assume jurisdiction
over the related issue. In Ludo & Luym Corporation v. Saornido, the Supreme Court recognized
that voluntary arbitrators are generally expected to decide only those questions expressly
delineated by the submission agreement; that, nevertheless, they can assume that they have the
necessary power to make a final settlement on the related issues, since arbitration is the final
resort for the adjudication of disputes. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that even if the specific
issue brought before the arbitrators merely mentioned the question of whether an employee was
discharged for just cause, they could reasonably assume that their powers extended beyond the
determination thereof to include the power to reinstate the employee or to grant back wages. In
the same vein, if the specific issue brought before the arbitrators referred to the date of
regularization of the employee, law and jurisprudence gave them enough leeway as well as
adequate prerogative to determine the entitlement of the employees to higher benefits in
accordance with the finding of regularization. Indeed, to require the parties to file another action
for payment of those benefits would certainly undermine labor proceedings and contravene the
constitutional mandate providing full protection to labor and speedy labor justice.
Philippine Electric Corporation v Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 168612, 10 December
The rule is that a Voluntary Arbitrators award or decision shall be appealed before the Court of
Appeals within 10 days from receipt of the award or decision. Should the aggrieved party choose
to file a motion for reconsideration with the Voluntary Arbitrator, the motion must be filed
within the same 10-day period since a motion for reconsideration is filed within the period for
taking an appeal.
Peoples Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils) v. Secretary of Labor, et al.
GR No. 179652, May 8, 2009

Labor Law
It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement power
somehow has to make a determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Such prerogatival determination, however, cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and
enforcement power itself. Indeed, such determination is merely preliminary, incidental and
collateral to the DOLEs primary function of enforcing labor standards provisions. The
determination of the existence of employer-employee relationship is still primarily lodged with
the NLRC. This is the meaning of the clause in cases where the relationship of employeremployee still exists in Art. 128(b).
Thus, if a complaint is brought before the DOLE to give effect to the labor standards provisions
of the Labor Code or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE that there is an
existing employer-employee relationship, the DOLE exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the
NLRC. If the DOLE finds that there is no employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is
properly with the NLRC. If a complaint is filed with the DOLE , and it is accompanied by a
claim for reinstatement, the jurisdiction is properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art. 217(3) of
the Labor Code, which provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction
over those cases involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of
employment, if accompanied by a claim for reinstatement. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC,
and there is still an existing employer- employee relationship, the jurisdiction is purely with the
DOLE. The findings of the DOLE, however may still be questioned through a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Manolito Barles, et al. v. Hon. Benedicto Bitonio, et al. GR No. 120270, June 16, 1999
The BLR shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request
of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts. As already held by the Court
in La Tondena Workers Union v. Secretary of Labor, intra-union conflicts such as examinations
of accoutns are under the jurisdiction of the BLR. However, the Rules of Procedure on
Mediation-Arbitration purpose and expressly separated or distinguished examinations of union
accounts from the genus of intra-union conflict and provided a different procedure for the
resolution of the same. Original jurisdiction over complaints for examinations of union accounts
is vested on the Regional Director and appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the former is
lodged with the BLR. This is apparent from Sections 3 and 4 of the Med-Arbitration Rules as
already mentioned. Contrast these two sections from Section 2 and Section 56 of the same rules.
Section 2 expressly vests upon Med-Arbiters original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide inter alia all other inter-union or internal union disputes. Section 5 states that the
decisions of the Med-Arbiter shall be appealable to the DOLE Secretary. Without a doubt, the
rules of Procedure on Mediation-Arbitration did not amend or supplant substantive law but
implemented and filled in details of procedure left vacuous or ambiguous by the Labor Code and
its Implementing Rules.
Araullo v Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 194169 (2013)
The Writ of Execution in the instant case was procedurally irregular, as it pre-empted the NLRC
Rules which require that where further computation of the award in the decision is necessary

Labor Law
during the course of the execution proceedings, no Writ of Execution shall be issued until after
the computation has been approved by the Labor Arbiter in an order issued after the parties have
been duly notified and heard on the matter. When the writ was issued, there was as yet no order
approving the computation made by the NLRC Computation and Examination Unit, and there
was a pending and unresolved Motion to Recompute filed by Club Filipino. A cursory
examination of the motion reveals that it raised valid issues that required determination in order
to arrive at a just resolution, so that none of the parties would be unjustly enriched.
Virgilio Anabe v. Asian Construction. GR No. 183233, December 23, 2009
To properly construe Article 291 of the Labor Code, it is essential to ascertain the time when the
third element of a cause of action transpired. Stated differently, in the computation of the threeyear prescriptive period, a determination must be made as to the period when the act constituting
a violation of the workers right to the benefits being claimed was committed. For if the cause of
action accrued more than three (3) years before the filing of the money claim, said cause of
action has already prescribed in accordance with Article 291.
George A. Arriola v Pilipino Star .Ngayon, Inc. and/or Miguel G. Belmont, G.R. No.
175689, 13 August 2014
This court ruled that Callantas complaint for illegal dismissal had not yet prescribed. Although
illegal dismissal is a violation of the Labor Code, it is not the "offense" contemplated in Article
290. Article 290 refers to illegal acts penalized under the Labor Code, including committing any
of the prohibited activities during strikes or lockouts, unfair labor practices, and illegal
recruitment activities. The three-year prescriptive period under Article 290, therefore, does not
apply to complaints for illegal dismissal.
Instead, "by way of supplement," Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines governs
complaints for illegal dismissal. Under Article 1146, an action based upon an injury to the rights
of a plaintiff must be filed within four years. This court explained:
. . . when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the
action instituted to contest the legality of one's dismissal from employment constitutes, in
essence, an action predicated "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff," as
contemplated under Art. 1146 of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four
[4] years.
This four-year prescriptive period applies to claims for backwages, not the three-year
prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. A claim for backwages,
according to this court, may be a money claim "by reason of its practical effect." Legally,
however, an award of backwages "is merely one of the reliefs which an illegally
dismissed employee prays the labor arbiter and the NLRC to render inhis favor as a
consequence of the unlawful act committed by the employer." Though it results "in the
enrichment of the individual [illegally dismissed], the award of backwages is not in
redress of a private right, but, rather, is in the nature of a command upon the employer to
make public reparation for his violation of the Labor Code."

Labor Law
Actions for damages due to illegal dismissal are likewise actions "upon an injury to the rights of
the plaintiff." Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, therefore, governs these actions.
SSS v. Aguas. G.R. No. 165546; February 27, 2006
A wife who is already separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be "dependent for
support" upon the husband, absent any showing to the contrary. Conversely, if it is proved that
the husband and wife were still living together at the time of his death, it would be safe to
presume that she was dependent on the husband for support, unless it is shown that she is capable
of providing for herself.
Bernardina P. Bartolome v Social Security System, et al., G.R. No. 192531, 12 November
Cornelios adoption of John, without more, does not deprive petitioner of the right to receive the
benefits stemming from Johns death as a dependent parent given Cornelios untimely demise
during Johns minority. Since the parent by adoption already died, then the death benefits under
the Employees' Compensation Program shall accrue solely to herein petitioner, John's sole
remaining beneficiary. The rule limiting death benefits claims to the legitimate parents is
contrary to law.
The phrase "dependent parents" should, therefore, include all parents, whether legitimate or
illegitimate and whether by nature or by adoption.
Hacienda Cataywa, et al. v Rosario Lorezo, G.R. No. 179640, 18 March 2015)
To be exempted from the coverage of SSS Law on the basis of casual employment, the services
must not merely be irregular, temporary or intermittent, but the same must not also be in
connection with the business or occupation of the employer. The primary standard, therefore, of
determining a regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The test is
whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed
and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety.
GSIS vs. De Leon. G.R. No. 186560; November 17, 2010
Thus, where the employee retires and meets the eligibility requirements, he acquires a vested
right to benefits that is protected by the due process clause. Retirees enjoy a protected property
interest whenever they acquire a right to immediate payment under pre-existing law. Thus, a
pensioner acquires a vested right to benefits that have become due as provided under the terms of
the public employees pension statute. No law can deprive such person of his pension rights
without due process of law, that is, without notice and opportunity to be heard.

Labor Law
GSIS vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 128524; April 20, 1999
The 24-hour duty doctrine should not be sweepingly applied to all acts and circumstances
causing the death of a police officer but only to those which, although not on official line of duty,
are nonetheless basically police service in character.
Iloilo Dock & Engineering Co. vs. ECC. G.R. No. L-26341. Nov. 27, 1968
When the injury is sustained when the employee is proceeding to or from his work on the
premises of the employer, the injury is compensable.
Enao v. ECC G.R. No. L-46046; April 5, 1985
The company which provides the means of transportation in going to, or coming from the place
of work, is liable to the injury sustained by the employees while on board said means of