You are on page 1of 214

Compiled by: Ma.

Cecelia Timbal

LlB-2

Rm 402

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

Contents
PASEI vs Torres (1992) G.R. 101279............................................................................7
San Juan de Dios Hospital vs NLRC (1997) G.R. 126383.............................................8
Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association vs NLRC (1997) G.R. 156225....9
Asuncion vs NLRC (2001) G.R. 129329.....................................................................10
Singer Sewing Machine vs NLRC () 193 SCRA 271....................................................12
Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc., vs IAC and Fermin Llamar (1994) G.R. 64948.......13
Encyclopaedia Britannica (Phil) Inc., vs NLRC (1996) G.R. 87098.............................14
Carungcong vs NLRC, Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (1997) G.R. 118086.........15
Ramos vs Court of Appeals () 380 SCRA 467............................................................16
Sonza vs ABS-CBN (2004) G.R. 138051....................................................................17
Lazaro vs Social Security Commission (2004) G.R. 138254......................................19
ABS-CBN vs Nazareno (2006) G.R. 164156...............................................................20
Francisco vs NLRC (2006) 500 SCRA 690..................................................................22
Nogales et al., vs Capitol Medical Center (2006) G.R. 142625.................................23
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., vs Dr. Climaco (2007) G.R. 146881..................................26
Calamba Medical Center vs NLRC (2008) G.R. 176484.............................................27
Ollendorff vs Abrahamson (1918) G.R. 13228..........................................................29
Del Castillo vs Richmond (1924) G.R. L-21127.........................................................30
Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Co vs NLRC (1997) G.R. 118978..........................31
Duncan Asso. Of Detailman-PTGWO vs Glaxo Wellcome Phils., (2004) G.R. 162994 32
Star Paper Corp., vs Simbol (2006) G.R. 164774......................................................33
Rivera vs Solidbank (2006) G.R. 163269..................................................................34
Yrasuegui vs Philippine Airlines (2008) G.R. 168081................................................35
Ilaw at Buklod Manggagawa vs NLRC (1991) 198 SCRA 586....................................37
Employers Confederation of the Phils vs NWPC (1991) 201 SCRA 759.....................39
Mabeza vs NLRC () 271 SCRA 670............................................................................41
Joy Brothers Inc., vs NWPC (1997) 273 SCRA 622....................................................43
Prubankers Association vs Prudential Bank (1999) 302 SCRA 74.............................43
Millares et al., vs NLRC () 305 SCRA 501..................................................................46
2 Ma. Cecelia Timbal
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

International School Alliance of Educators vs Quisumbing (2000) 333 SCRA 13......48
Bankard Employees Union vs NLRC (2004) G.R. 140689..........................................50
Odango vs NLRC (2005) G.R. 147420.......................................................................52
C. Planas Commercial vs NLRC (2005) G.R. 144619.................................................53
EJR Crafts Corp., vs CA (2006)..................................................................................54
Pag – Asa Steel Works vs CA (2006) G.R. 166647.....................................................55
Equitable PCI Bank vs Sadac (2006) G.R. 164772....................................................56
Metropolitan Bank vs NWPC (2007) G.R. 144322.....................................................57
Rajah Humabon Hotel vs Trajano (1993) G.R. 100222-23.........................................60
Guico vs Sec of Labor (1998) G.R. 131750...............................................................61
EJR Crafts Corp., vs Court of Appeals (2006) G.R. 154101........................................62
Ex – Bataan Veterans Security Agency vs Sec of Labor (2007) G.R. 152396............63
Catholic Vicariate Baguio City vs Hon. Sto. Tomas (2008) G.R.167334.....................64
Sapio vs Undaloc Construction (2008) G.R. 155034.................................................66
Hon. Secretary of Labor vs Panay Veterans Security and Investigation Agency (2008)
G.R. 167708.............................................................................................................. 67
People’s Broadcasting vs Secretary of DOLE (2009) G.R. 179652............................69
Phil Hoteliers Inc., vs National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant & Allied
Industries – Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter (2009) G.R. 181972.....................................71
Gaa vs Court of Appeals (1985) 140 SCRA 304........................................................75
Nestle Phils Inc., vs NLRC (1991) 193 SCRA 504.......................................................76
Five J Taxi vs NLRC (1992) 235 SCRA 556.................................................................78
Manila Electric Co vs Sec of Labor (1999) G.R. 127598............................................80
Philippine Veterans Bank vs NLRC (1999) G.R. 130439............................................81
Philippine Appliance Corp., vs Court of Appeals (2004) G.R. 149434.......................83
Special Steel Products vs Villareal (2004) G.R. 143304............................................84
Agabon vs NLRC (2004) G.R. 158693.......................................................................85
American Wire & Cable Daily Rated Employees vs American Wire (2005) G.R.
155059..................................................................................................................... 86
Honda Philippines Inc., vs Samahang Manggagawa sa Honda (2005) G.R. 145561. 87
Producers Bank vs NLRC () 335 SCRA 506................................................................88
Jardin vs NLRC (2000) G.R. 119268..........................................................................89
3 Ma. Cecelia Timbal
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

Manila Jockey Club Employees Labor Union vs Manila Jockey Club (2007) G.R.
167601..................................................................................................................... 90
San Miguel Corp., vs Layoc Jr. Et al., (2007) G.R. 149640.........................................91
San Miguel Corp vs Pontillas (2008) G.R. 155178.....................................................92
Arco Metal Products Co. Inc., et al., vs Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Arco Metal
– NAFLU (2008) G.R. 170734.................................................................................... 93
Genesis Transport Service et al., vs UMM Genesis Transport (2010) G.R. 182114....94
Congson vs NLRC (1995) 243 SCRA 260...................................................................96
North Davao Mining vs NLRC (1996) 254 SCRA 721.................................................98
San Juan de Dios Hospital vs NLRC (1997) 282 SCRA 316......................................100
Sime Darby Pilipinas Inc., vs NLRC (1998) 289 SCRA 86.........................................102
Philippine Airlines vs NLRC (1999) 302 SCRA 582..................................................103
Linton Commercial Co., vs Hellera (2007) G.R. 163147..........................................105
Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco vs NLRC (2008) G.R. 151309......................................106
Union Filipro Employees vs Vivar (1992) 205 SCRA 203.........................................108
National Sugar Refinery Corp vs NLRC (1993) 220 SCRA 452.................................110
Salazar vs NLRC (1996) 256 SCRA 273...................................................................113
Labor Congress of the Philippines vs NLRC (1998) G.R. 123938.............................114
Mercidar Fishing Corp., vs NLRC (1998) G.R. 112574.............................................116
San Miguel Corp., vs Court of Appeals (2002) G.R. 146775....................................117
Tan vs Lagarama (2002) G.R. 151228.....................................................................118
Lambo vs NLRC (1999) 317 SCRA 420....................................................................119
R&E Transport vs Latag (2004) G.R. 155214..........................................................120
Asian Transmission vs Court of Appeals (2004) 425 SCRA 478...............................121
Autobus Transport System vs Bautista (2005) G.R. 156364...................................123
San Miguel Corp., vs Del Rosario (2005) G.R. 168194............................................125
Penaranda vs Baganga Plywood Corp (2006) G.R. 159577....................................127
House of Sara Lee vs Rey (2006) G.R. 149013.......................................................129
Leyte IV Electric Cooperative Inc., vs LEYECO IV Employees Union – ALU (2007) G.R.
157775................................................................................................................... 131
San Miguel Corp., et al., vs Layoc, Jr., et al., (2007) G.R. 149640...........................133
Bahia Shipping Services Inc., vs Chua (2008) G.R. 162195....................................134
4 Ma. Cecelia Timbal
Rm 402

LlB – 2

..139 Gerlach vs Reuters Ltd... 159268..................... 142351......... vs Caballeda (2009) G...160 St.....R..................R.......................... Phils............156 UERM Memorial Medical Center vs NLRC (1997) G.178 Metro Transit Organization vs Piglas NFWU-KMU et al............ 156644...........R................. 165910...................135 Pantranco North Express vs NLRC (1996) 259 SCRA 161...................................... vs Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda (2005) G....................................162 Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co.140 Honda Phils.......... vs NLRC (2006) G.......... 156225 150 Philippine Airlines Inc.....R...R.R........................... Martin Funeral Homes vs NLRC (2006) G................173 Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. 165 Phil.........................158 Philtranco Services vs NLRC (1998) G.............. vs Panganiban (2007) G....R.......... vs Phil....169 Balagtas Multi-Purpose Coop vs Court of Appeals (2006) G.....R.....170 St.... vs Esteva (2006) G.........145 Reyes vs NLRC (2007) G................................. 1104419... (2010) G......... 166421..................R........... 155214........ 156934......... vs Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Arco Metal – NAFLU (2008) G.R............... vs Saornido (2003) G...........R.............University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case PNCC Skyway Traffic Management & Security Division Workers Organization vs PNCC Skyway Corp.....179 5 Ma........... Inc......................172 DOLE Phils.................. 130866. 175460...................... 145561........... et al.................. 160233................... Ltd.... Cecelia Timbal Rm 402 LlB – 2 .....................R.......... 148542................177 Letran Calamba Faculty & Employees Association vs NLRC (2008) G..................153 T/Sgt.................................137 R&E Transport vs Latag (2004) G...... (2008) G................R... 171231......... Inc.........R.......................... 140690....................... Larkins vs NLRC (1995) G..........R.R.................R................................................................................................... Journalistic Inc.........161 Ludo & Luym Corp...R........ 142399 ..........R................ 151407................................................................................R.. vs Amarilla (2006) G......... Airlines Employees Association (2008) G.R..... vs Court of Appeals (2006) G.........R........................... 161115. 151 Arco Metal Products Co....................................152 Universal Sugar Milling Corp......143 Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp......... (2005) G. 170734... 162775.............R....... 92432...............................175 Far East Agricultural Supply vs Lebatigue (2007) G......R...R..... 124100..................................... Martin Funeral Homes vs NLRC (1998) G....................... 162813............. 156225.. 142 Jaculbe vs Siliman University (2007) G........148 Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association vs NLRC (1997) G......................

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 6 Ma. Cecelia Timbal Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .

Cecelia Timbal Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 7 Ma.

37. the National Seamen Board. are unreasonable. On the other hand. Pursuant to the previous issuances. More and more administrative bodies are necessary to help in the regulation of LlB – 2 8 Ma. WON respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of their rule-making authority in issuing said circulars? 2. unfair and oppressive? Held: They are in accordance but legally invalid. 1982 to take over the functions of the Overseas Employment Development Board. Series of 1991. 797 on May 1. Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987. which was created by Executive Order No. and the overseas employment functions of the Bureau of Employment Services. temporarily suspending the recruitment by private employment agencies of "Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong". Cecelia Timbal Rm 402 . defective and unenforceable for lack of power publication and filing in the Office of the National Administrative Register as required in Art 2 of CC. including domestic helpers. Series of 1991. through the POEA took over the business of deploying such Hong Kong-bound workers. It has been necessitated by "the growing complexity of the modern society" (Solid Homes. Series of 1991. to engage in the business of obtaining overseas employment for Filipino land-based workers. the scope of the regulatory authority of the POEA.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case PASEI vs Torres (1992) G. 17 and 20 of the Labor Code. providing GUIDELINES on the Government processing and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to Hong Kong and the accreditation of Hong Kong recruitment agencies intending to hire Filipino domestic helpers. The DOLE itself. Pursuant to the above DOLE circular. Article 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement activities. the POEA Administrator also issued Memorandum Circular No. Art 5 of the Labor Code and Sec 3(1) and 4. 2. Issues: 1. unreasonable and oppressive. Inc. 30. WON that the assailed DOLE and POEA circulars are contrary to the Constitution. the POEA issued Memorandum Circular No. is broad and far-ranging as provided by Articles 15. 16. on the processing of employment contracts of domestic workers for Hong Kong. as a result of published stories regarding the abuses suffered by Filipino housemaids employed in Hong Kong. Payawal).R. On June 1991. Chap 2. 101279 Facts: PASIE is the largest national organization of private employment and recruitment agencies duly licensed and authorized by the POEA. The vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in administrative bodies is not unconstitutional. 1. vs. DOLE Secretary Ruben Torres issued Department Order No.

There is nothing in the law that supports then Secretary of Labor’s assertion that “personnel in subject hospitals and clinics are entitled to a full weekly wage for seven (7) days if they have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek in any given workweek”.R. The questioned circulars are therefore a valid exercise of the police power as delegated to the executive branch of Government.” Respondent hospital failed to give a favourable response. It is noteworthy that the assailed circulars do not prohibit the petitioner from engaging in the recruitment and deployment of Filipino landbased workers for overseas employment. hence the petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. San Juan de Dios Hospital vs NLRC (1997) G. Further. The Policy Instruction No. 126383 Facts: Petitioners. 5901 may support Policy Instructions No. 54 relies and purports to implement Republic Act No. Accordingly. petitioners' position is also negated by the very rules and regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Labor Standards which implement Republic Act No. Issue: WON Policy Instructions No. 9 Ma. The power to "restrict and regulate conferred by Article 36 of the Labor Code involves a grant of police power. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint which was also confirmed by NLRC. 5901. rank-and-file employees and members of San Juan de Dios Hospital Employees Association sent a 4 page letter requesting and pleading for the expeditious implementation and payment by the respondent Hospital of the ’40 HOURS/5-DAY WORKWEEK’ with compensable weekly two (2) days off provided for by Republic Act 5901 as clarified for enforcement by the Secretary of Labor’s Policy Instructions No. and (2) where the exigencies of service require that health personnel work for six days or forty-eight hours then such health personnel shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty percent of their regular wage for work on the sixth day.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case society's ramified activities. 5901. 54 issued by then Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon is valid? Held: It is invalid. only Article 83 of the Labor Code which appears to have substantially incorporated or reproduced the basic provisions of Republic Act No. thus. five days per week for health personnel. What Article 83 merely provides are: (1) the regular office hour of eight hours a day. Cecelia Timbal Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 1988. 54 on which the latter’s validity may be gauged. 54 dated April 12. petitioners filed a complaint regarding their “claims for statutory benefits under the above-cited law and policy issuance”. but reliance to this RA is misplaced since it has long been repealed with the passage of the Labor Code. otherwise known as “An Act Prescribing Forty Hours A Week Of Labor For Government and Private Hospitals Or Clinic Personnel”.

R.7. Inc. Under the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 851. Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association vs NLRC (1997) G. Under a later set of Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 851 issued by the then Labor Secretary Blas Ople.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Pertinent portions of the implementing rules provided in Sections 1. 174. If petitioners are entitled to two days off with pay. denied and dismissed the respective complaints. Calamba. 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 Dec 16. Issue: WON the pay of the faculty members for teaching overloads should be included as basis in the computation of their 13th month pay? Held: Teaching overload may not be considered part of basic salary. 54 to our mind unduly extended the statute. overtime pay. The Labor Arbiter (LA) handling the consolidated cases. the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says. 5901 and Article 83 of the Labor Code for it is an elementary rule of statutory construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal. and 15 of the said Act. 156225 Facts: The Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association (petitioner) filed a complaint against Colegio de San Juan de Letran. Policy Instructions No. vacation. (respondent) for collection of various monetary claims due its members. then there appears to be no sense at all why Section 15 of the implementing rules grants additional compensation equivalent to the regular rate plus at least twenty-five percent thereof for work performed on Sunday to health personnel. b) profit sharing payments. or 10 M a . or an “additional straight-time pay which must be equivalent at least to the regular rate” “[f]or work performed in excess of forty hours a week xxx. the following compensations are deemed not part of the basic salary: a) cost-of-living allowances granted pursuant to PD 525 and Letter of Instruction No. 1975. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . The Secretary of Labor moreover erred in invoking the “spirit and intent” of Republic Act No. The all-embracing phrase "earnings and other remunerations" which are deemed not part of the basic salary includes within its meaning payments for sick. earnings and other remunerations are excluded as part of the basic salary and in the computation of the 13 th-month pay.

129329 Facts: On Aug 1993. on Aug 1994. As provided for by Art 87 of the Labor Code. premium for works performed on rest days and special holidays. an overload pay. Medical Director Wifrido Juco issued a memorandum to petitioner charging her with chronic absenteeism. Three days later. petitioner submitted her response to the memo but was also dismissed on ground of disobedience of lawful orders and failure to submit her reply in 2 days. and disobedience and insubordination for continued refusal of signing memos given to her. habitual tardiness. for reason of which such is categorically excluded from the definition of basic salary under the Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 851.R. getting salary of an absent employee without acknowledging or signing for it. it is clear that overtime pay is an additional compensation other than and added to the regular wage or basic salary. In the same manner that payment for overtime work and work performed during special holidays is considered as additional compensation apart and distinct from an employee's regular wage or basic salary. Petitioner was then required to explain within 2 days why she will not be terminated. After the inspection conducted in the respondent’s company premises for a violation of the lbor standards for non-coverage. may not be considered as part of a teacher's regular or basic salary. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Asuncion vs NLRC (2001) G.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case maternity leaves. 11 M a . pay for regular holidays and night differentials. because it is being paid for additional work performed in excess of the regular teaching load. This prompted petitioner to file for a case of illegal termination which was judged by the Labor Arbiter to be true. owing to its very nature and definition. Asuncion was employed as an accountant/bookkeeper by the respondent (Mabini Medical Clinic). loitering and wasting of company time. As such they are deemed not part of the basic salary and shall not be considered in the computation of the 13 th-month pay. private respondent.

In the memorandum charging petitioner and notice of termination. the record book was never presented in evidence.” 12 M a . private respondents referred to the record book as its basis for petitioner’s alleged absenteeism and tardiness. would be “every kind of assistance that management must accord to the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense. some of which were allegedly committed almost a year before. the employee must also be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. casts serious doubts on the factual basis of the charges of absenteeism and tardiness. takes note of the fact that the two-day period given to petitioner to explain and answer the charges against her was most unreasonable. In order for the dismissal to be valid. the Court held that what would qualify as sufficient or “ample opportunity. Thus. likewise. not to mention the fact that the charges levelled against her lacked particularity.” as required by law. Private respondents had possession thereof and the opportunity to present the same. the authenticity thereof is highly suspect and devoid of any rational probative value especially in the light of the existence of the official record book of the petitioner’s alleged absences and tardiness in the possession of the employer company. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Issue: WON NLRC erred in finding that the petitioner was dismissed by the private respondent for a just or authorized cause? Held: Petitioner has been illegally terminated. The Court. Interestingly. which is the best evidence in its possession and control of the charges against the petitioner. Private respondents claimed that they sent several notices to the petitioner warning her of her absences. not only must it be based on just cause supported by clear and convincing evidence. however. It bears stressing that a worker’s employment is property in the constitutional sense. In Ruffy v. The failure of the employer to discharge this burden means that the dismissal is not justified and that the employee is entitled to reinstatement and back wages. In the case at bar. It is the employer who has the burden of proving that the dismissal was with just or authorized cause. He cannot be deprived of his work without due process. 23 half-days and 108 tardiness). considering that she was charged with several offenses and infractions (35 absences. petitioner refused to receive the same. private respondents’ unexplained and unjustified non-presentation of the record book. NLRC. both the handwritten listing and computer print-outs being unsigned. The law mandates that every opportunity and assistance must be accorded to the employee by the management to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense. however. she is necessarily entitled to reinstatement to her former previous position without loss of seniority and the payment of backwages.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Singer Sewing Machine vs NLRC () 193 SCRA 271 13 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 Midterm Case .

The present case calls for the application of the control test. The following elements are generally considered in the determination of the relationship: the selection and engagement of the employee. Drilon. Med-Arbiter ruled that there exists an employee-employer relationship and granted the certification election which was affirmed by Sec. power of dismissal and the power to control the employee’s conduct which is the most important element. Issue: WON there exists an employer-employee relationship between the parties. The requirement that collection agents utilize only receipt forms and report forms issued by the company and that reports shall be submitted at least once a week is not necessarily an indication of control over the means by which the job collection is to be performed. The company opposed the petition mainly because the union members are not employees but independent contractors as evidenced by the collection agency agreement which they signed. The agreement confirms the status of the collecting agents as independent contractor. The plain language of the agreement reveals that the designation as collection agent does not create an employment relationship and that the applicant is to be considered at all times as an independent contractor. The union insist that the provisions of the Collection Agreement belie the company’s position that the union members are independent contractors. 14 M a . would lead to the conclusion that no employee-employer relationship exists. If the union members are not employees. any control is only with respect to the end result of the collection since the requirements regulate the things to be done after the performance of the collection job or the rendition of service. which if not satisfied. no right to organize for the purpose of bargaining or as a bargaining agent cannot be recognized. The company files the present petition on the determination of the relationship. payment of wages. Even if report requirements are to be called control measures. Not all collecting agents are employees and neither are all collecting agents independent contractors. The nature of the relationship between a company and its collecting agents depends on the circumstances of each particular relationship. Held: Respondents are not employees of the company.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Facts: Singer Machine Collectors Union-Baguio filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of Singer Sewing Machine. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .

and without violating any right to work on their part.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the company. caddies by occupation. they are not entitled to the constitutional right to form or join a labor organization for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the very nature of things. For all that is made to appear. and hence. the latter had not registered them as such with the SSS. Manila Golf & Country Club. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . They alleged that although the petitioners were employees of the Manila Golf and Country Club. vs IAC and Fermin Llamar (1994) G. a domestic corporation. There is no constitutional and legal basis for their union to be granted their petition for direct certification . on the other hand. the petitioners were not subject to the direction and control of the Club as regards the manner in which they performed their work. All these considerations clash frontally with the concept of employment. Issue: WON there exist an employer-employee relationship between the cadies and the Golf Club? Held: No existence of employer-employee relationship. the Club may do in any case even absent any breach of the rules. they were not the Club's employees. The IAC would point to the fact that the Club suggests the rate of fees payable by the players to the caddies as still another indication of the latter's status as employees..R. It 15 M a . It is not pretended that if found remiss in the observance of said rules. the respondent Club alleged that the petitioners. 64948 Facts: Respondents were caddies and employees of Manila Golf & Country Club who originally filed a petition with the Social Security Commission (SSC) for coverage and availment of benefits under the Social Security Act. were allowed into the Club premises to render services as such to the individual members and guests playing the Club's golf course and who themselves paid for such services. to stay away for as long they like. caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within the premises and grounds of whatever club they do their work in. any discipline may be meted them beyond barring them from the premises which. free to leave anytime they please. Inc. that as such caddies. also without having to observe any working hours. In the case before the SSC. they work for the club to which they attach themselves on sufferance but. it may be supposed.

As compensation. Limjoco resigned from office to pursue his private business. Petitioner would also be informed about appointments. as pointed out by petitioner which was never refuted that: has no means of compelling the presence of a caddy. Moreover. A caddy is not required to exercise his occupation in the premises of petitioner. promotions. financed the business expenses. and transfers of employees in private respondent’s district. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . vs NLRC (1996) G. 16 M a . however. He then filed a complaint against petitioner Encyclopaedia Britannica with DOLE. 87098 Facts: Private respondent Benjamin Limjoco was a Sales Division Manager of petitioner Encyclopaedia Britannica and was in charge of selling petitioner’s products through some sales representatives. Court agree that the group rotation system so-called. that the intendment of such fact is to the contrary. He was also allowed to use petitioner’s name. showing that the Club has not the measure of control over the incidents of the caddies' work and compensation that an employer would possess. and also illegal deduction from his sales commissions. and maintained his own workforce.R. Petitioner alleged that Limjoco was not its employee but an independent dealer authorized to promote and sell its products and in return.. however.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case seems to the Court. He may work with any other golf club or he may seek employment a caddy or otherwise with any entity or individual without restriction by petitioner. claiming for nonpayment of separation pay and other benefits. Limjoco did not have any salary and his income from the company was dependent on the volume of sales accomplished. He also had his own separate office. The salaries of his secretary. Encyclopaedia Britannica (Phil) Inc. On June 1974. is less a measure of employer control than an assurance that the work is fairly distributed. private respondent received commissions from the products sold by his agents. goodwill and logo. received commissions there from. It was. a caddy who is absent when his turn number is called simply losing his turn to serve and being assigned instead the last number for the day. agreed upon that office expenses would be deducted from private respondent’s commissions.

At the time he was connected with the petitioner company. it would indicate that petitioner has no effective control over the personal activities of Limjoco.R. and sales representatives were chargeable to his commissions. he could not be employed elsewhere and he would be required to devote full time for petitioner. she signed an “Agent’s Agreement” and was designated to solicit applications for insurance and annuity services. the latter did not even report to the office of the petitioner and did not observe fixed office hours Issue: WON there exist an employer-employee relationship and necessarily entitles Limjoco of his claims? Held: Private respondent was merely an agent or an independent dealer of the petitioner. private respondent was also a director and later the president of the Farmers’ Rural Bank. 118086 Facts: Susan Carungcong began as an agent of Sun Life in 1974. As pointed out “the element of control is absent.” Carungcong vs NLRC. In ascertaining whether the relationship is that of employer-employee or one of independent contractor. petitioner argued that it had no control and supervision over the complainant as to the manner and means he conducted his business operations. and in turn is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof. Sun Life Assurance Co. who as admitted by the latter had other “conflict of interest” requiring his personal attention. where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case utility man. Thus. The contract set out in detail the terms and conditions — particularly those concerning the commissions payable to her — under which her relationship with the 17 M a . As he pointed out in his resignation letter. At the very least. each case must be determined by its own facts and all features of the relationship are to be considered. of Canada (1997) G. it was rather unusual for him to wait for more than a year from his separation from work before he decided to file his claims. Limjoco was aware of “conflict with other interests which xxx have increasingly required my personal attention”. moreover. Respondent was free to conduct his work and he was free to engage in other means of livelihood. If private respondent was indeed an employee. Had he been an employee of the company. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .

Carungcong and Sun Life executed another Agreement ." Subsequently. and termination of the agreement inter alia by written notice "without cause. and termination of the agreement by death. shall be considered an independent contractor and not . limitation of authority. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . was titled." Making explicit reference to the first agreement "which became effective on the 1st day of July. that in the performance of her duties 18 M a . 1979" said second contract — explicitly described as a "further agreement" — contained provisions regarding remuneration (overriding commissions in accordance with a fixed schedule). is the "Career Agent's (or Unit Manager's) Agreement. his obligations. limitations on his authority. or by written notice "with or without cause. like the "Career Agent's (or Unit Manager's) Agreement" first signed by her. said contract was superseded by 2 new agreements: first. The contracts she had willingly and knowingly signed with Sun Life repeatedly and clearly provided that said agreements were terminable by either party by written notice with or without cause. the Manager of Sun Life's Internal Audit Department. commenced an inquiry into the special fund availments of Carungcong and other New Business Managers which later prompted the petitioner’s termination.by which the former was named New Business Manager with the function generally "to manage a New Business Office established by her and to obtain applications for life insurance policies and other products offered by or distributed through Sun Life and to perform such other duties in connection therewith as Sun Life may require from time to time. second." and that "under no circumstance shall the New Business Manager and/or his employees be considered employees of Sun Life. ruled that she had been illegally dismissed." After receiving reports of anomalies in relation thereto from unit managers and agents by the company’s VP." dealt with such matters as the agent's commissions. Noteworthy is that this last agreement.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case company would be governed." This latest Agreement stressed that the "New Business Manager in performance of his duties defined herein." It declared that the "Agent shall be an independent contractor and none of the terms of agreement shall be construed as creating an employer-employee relationship. Five years later. an employee of Sun Life. it was emphasized. She then instituted proceedings for vindication in the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission where she succeeded in obtaining a favorable judgment finding that there existed an employer-employee relationship between her and Sun Life. . thus entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other benefits. "MANAGER'S Supplementary Agreement. Issue: WON there existed an employer-employee relationship between Caruncong and Sunlife? Held: Carungcong was an independent contractor and not an employee of Sun Life.

The nail beds of Erlinda were bluish discoloration in her left hand. 19 M a . Erlinda remained in comatose condition until she died. She was referred to Dr. Issue: WON there was an employee-employer relationship that existed between the Medical Center and Drs. The family of Ramos sued them for damages. the hiring and the right to terminate consultants fulfill the hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship with the exception of payment of wages. the control exercised. but the means to be used in reaching such an end. Hosaka has not yet arrived. Dr. (3) the power to hire and fire. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . an employee of Sun Life. Held: No employer-employee between the doctors and hospital. Rogelio wanted to pull out his wife from the operating room. Hosaka finally arrived at 12:10 pm more than 3 hours of the scheduled operation. Erlinda was being wheeled to the Intensive care Unit and stayed there for a month. who agreed to do the operation.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case defined herein. In applying the four fold test." and that "(u)nder no circumstance shall the New Business Manager and/or his employees be considered employees of Sun Life. Carungcong would be considered an independent contractor and not . Erlinda was admitted to the medical center the day before the operation. Since the ill-fated operation. The operation was scheduled on June 17. Guiterres tried to intubate Erlinda. the following elements must be present: (1) selection and engagement of services. While consultants are not technically employees. (2) payment of wages. she was ready for operation as early as 7:30 am. The control test is determining. 1985 in the De los Santos Medical Center. . Hosaka. By 10 am. Hosaka and Guiterrez. and (4) the power to control not only the end to be achieved. DLSMC cannot be considered an employer of the respondent doctors. Dr. a surgeon. On the following day. At 3 pm. Around 9:30. Dr." Ramos vs Court of Appeals () 380 SCRA 467 Facts: Petitioner Erlinda Ramos was advised to undergo an operation for the removal of her stone in the gall bladder. fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting consultant staff. Private Hospitals hire. It has been consistently held that in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.

C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . The hospital cannot dismiss the consultant but he may lose his privileges granted by the hospital. ABS-CBN would pay the talent fees on the 10th and 25th days of the month. 13th month pay. 138051 Facts: In May 1994. ABS-CBN signed an agreement with Mel & Jay Management and Development Corp for a radio and television program. separation pay. service incentive leave pay.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The hospital does not hire consultants but it accredits and grants him the privilege of maintaining a clinic and/or admitting patients. Issue: WON Sonza was an employee or independent contractor? Held: There was no employer-employee relationship that existed. At the end of the same month. Sonza filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before the DOLE for non-payment of salaries. Sonza vs ABS-CBN (2004) G. thus. Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-CBN President Eugenio Lopez III about a recent event concerning his programs and career. ABS-CBN agreed to pay for SONZA’s services a monthly talent fee of P310.000 for the first year and P317. The hospital’s obligation is limited to providing the patient with the preferred room accommodation and other things that will ensure that the doctor’s orders are carried out. On April 1996. signing bonus.R. the notice of rescission of Agreement was sent. 20 M a . travel allowance and amounts due under the Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP) which was opposed by ABS-CBN on the ground there was no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. It is the patient who pays the consultants. and that the said violation of the company has breached the agreement. but that of an independent contractor. The court finds that there is no employer-employee relationship between the doctors and the hospital.000 for the second and third year of the Agreement.

ABS-CBN engaged SONZA’s services specifically to co-host the "Mel & Jay" programs. (c) The power of dismissal . there would be no need for the parties to stipulate on benefits such as "SSS.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Case law has consistently held that the elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (a) The selection and engagement of the employee . is a circumstance indicative. The Agreement required SONZA to attend only rehearsals and tapings of the shows.and post-production staff meetings. the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result of negotiations that led to the Agreement. However. How SONZA delivered his lines. SONZA only needed his skills and talent. of an independent contractual relationship. ABS-CBN could not dictate the contents of SONZA’s script. either party may terminate their relationship. because of his unique skills. but not conclusive. the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor. Medicare. To perform his work. talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary employees." Even if it suffered severe business losses.The control test is the most important test. talent and celebrity status. The clear implication is that SONZA had a free hand on what to say or discuss in his shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its interests.ABS-CBN engaged SONZA’s services to co-host its television and radio programs because of SONZA’s peculiar skills. The specific selection and hiring of SONZA. SONZA did not have to render eight hours of work per day. The converse holds true as well – the less control the hirer exercises. ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA’s talent fees as long as "AGENT and Jay Sonza shall faithfully and completely perform each condition of this Agreement. ABS-CBN did not assign any other work to SONZA. and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBN’s control. The greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises. (d) The employer’s power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished . First.ABS-CBN directly paid SONZA his monthly talent fees with no part of his fees going to MJMDC. During the life of the Agreement. appeared on television. 21 M a . If SONZA were ABS-CBN’s employee. the Agreement prohibited SONZA from criticizing in his shows ABS-CBN or its interests. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . as well as pre. (b) The payment of wages . ABS-CBN could not retrench SONZA because ABS-CBN remained obligated to pay SONZA’s talent fees during the life of the Agreement. x x x and 13th month pay" which the law automatically incorporates into every employer-employee contract.For violation of any provision of the Agreement.

The Agreement stipulates that SONZA shall abide with the rules and standards of performance "covering talents" of ABS-CBN. exclusivity is not necessarily the same as control. In short. Clearly. Lastly." The KBP code applies to broadcasters." Normally. but simply to protect the investment of the broadcast station. time and effort "in building up its talents as well as the programs they appear in and thus expects that said talents remain exclusive with the station for a commensurate period of time. The broadcast station normally spends substantial amounts of money. In the broadcast industry. being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that SONZA is an employee of ABS-CBN. the huge talent fees partially compensates for exclusivity. This practice is not designed to control the means and methods of work of the talent. which has been adopted by the COMPANY (ABSCBN) as its Code of Ethics. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . The hiring of exclusive talents is a widespread and accepted practice in the entertainment industry. not to employees of radio and television stations. the rules and standards of performance referred to in the Agreement are those applicable to talents and not to employees of ABS-CBN.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Second. 22 M a . Broadcasters are not necessarily employees of radio and television stations. a much higher fee is paid to talents who agree to work exclusively for a particular radio or television station. The code of conduct imposed on SONZA under the Agreement refers to the "Television and Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster sa Pilipinas (KBP). Even an independent contractor can validly provide his services exclusively to the hiring party. The Agreement does not require SONZA to comply with the rules and standards of performance prescribed for employees of ABS-CBN.

but also as to the means and methods by which the same is accomplished. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . It is an accepted doctrine that for the purposes of coverage under the Social Security Act. As such. Lazaro had failed during the said period.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Lazaro vs Social Security Commission (2004) G. and thus was subject to the control of management as to how she implements its policies and its end results. Issue: WON Laudato is considered employee of Royal Star Marketing? Held: Laudato is an employee of Royal Star and as such is entitled to the coverage of Social Security Law. As such. whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee. Laudato alleged that despite her employment as sales supervisor of the sales agents for Royal Star from April of 1979 to March of 1986. the Court upheld the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the insurance company and its agents.R. proprietor of Royal Star. averring instead that she was a mere sales agent whom he paid purely on commission basis. Laudato oversaw and supervised the sales agents of the company. found that Laudato was a sales supervisor and not a mere agent. Lazaro also maintained that Laudato was not subjected to definite hours and conditions of work. to report her to the SSC for compulsory coverage or remit Laudato’s social security contributions. In Grepalife v. 138254 Facts: Rosalina Laudato filed a petition before the SSC for social security coverage and remittance of unpaid monthly social security contributions against her three (3) employers. Among them was Angelito Lazaro. 23 M a . she could not be deemed an employee of Royal Star. The fact that Laudato was paid by way of commission does not preclude the establishment of an employer-employee relationship. despite the fact that the compensation that the agents on commission received was not paid by the company but by the investor or the person insured. whether the "employer" controls or has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. Judico. as stated earlier. Lazaro denied that Laudato was a sales supervisor of Royal Star. which is engaged in the business of selling home appliances. The relevant factor remains. the determination of employer-employee relationship warrants the application of the “control test. also as upheld by the Court of Appeals. not only as to the result of the work done.” that is. It should also be emphasized that the SSC.

1999. Underpayment of Overtime Pay. respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment Status. The Memorandum evinces the fact that Royal Star exercised control over its sales supervisors or agents such as Laudato as to the means and methods through which these personnel performed their work. prepare and arrange airtime schedule for public service announcement and complaints. and f) Record. and Lerasan as production assistants (PAs) on different dates. log clerical reports. and that the DYAB studio operations would be handled by the studio technician. arrange airing of commercial broadcasting based on the daily operations log and digicart of respondent ABS-CBN. However. 24 M a . They were assigned at the news and public affairs. 2000. Deiparine. Petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to be effective during the period from Dec 11. b) Coordinate. man based control radio. 1996 to Dec 11. including Sundays and holidays. 164156 Facts: ABS-CBN employed respondents Nazareno. etc. A piece of documentary evidence appreciated by the SSC is Memorandum dated 3 May 1980 of Teresita Lazaro. Sick Leave Pay. There was a revision of the schedule and assignments and that respondent Gerzon was assigned as the full-time PA of the TV News Department reporting directly to Leo Lastimosa. and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the petitioner before the NLRC. arrange personalities for air interviews. Premium Pay. respondents were not included to the CBA.000. The SSC examined the cash vouchers issued by Royal Star to Laudato. They were issued ABS-CBN employees’ identification cards and were required to work for a minimum of eight hours a day. for various radio programs in the Cebu Broadcasting Station. anchor program interview. e) Assist. calling cards of Royal Star denominating Laudato as a “Sales Supervisor” of the company. Gerzon. and Certificates of Appreciation issued by Royal Star to Laudato in recognition of her unselfish and loyal efforts in promoting the company. Due to a memorandum assigning PA’s to non-drama programs. Service Incentive Pay. Holiday Pay. They were made to: a) Prepare. ABS-CBN vs Nazareno (2006) G. General Manager of Royal Star. On Oct 12. prepare schedule of reporters for scheduled news reporting and lead-in or incoming reports. since petitioner refused to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit. d) Facilitate. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . directing that no commissions were to be given on all “main office” sales from walk-in customers and enjoining salesmen and sales supervisors to observe this new policy.R.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The finding of the SSC that Laudato was an employee of Royal Star is supported by substantial evidence. with a monthly compensation of P4. c) Coordinate.

that they did not observe the required office hours. The reason being that a customary appointment is not indispensable before one may be formally declared as having attained regular status.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Issue: WON the respondents are regular employees? Held: Respondents are considered regular employees of ABS-CBN and are entitled to the benefits granted to all regular employees. Respondents did not have the power to bargain for huge talent fees. Any employee who has rendered at least one year of service. and that they were permitted to join other productions during their free time are not conclusive of the nature of their employment. There are two kinds of regular employees under the law: (1) those engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. regardless of the nature of the activity performed. Article 280 of the Labor Code provides: REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT. What determines whether a certain employment is regular or otherwise is the character of the activities performed in relation to the particular trade or business taking into account all the circumstances. a circumstance negating independent contractual relationship. with respect to the activities in which they are employed. and (2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service. whether continuous or broken. The so-called “talent fees” of respondents correspond to wages given as a result of an employer-employee relationship. the employment is considered regular as long as the activity exists. whether continuous or intermittent. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . and in some cases the length of time of its performance and its continued existence. is deemed regular with respect to the activity performed and while such activity actually exists. The fact that respondents received pre-agreed “talent fees” instead of salaries. or where the work is continuous or intermittent. Where a person has rendered at least one year of service. no peculiar or unique skill. The employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents has been proven by the ff: First.—The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties. Second. 25 M a . In the selection and engagement of respondents. They are regular employees who perform several different duties under the control and direction of ABS-CBN executives and supervisors. talent or celebrity status was required from them because they were merely hired through petitioner’s personnel department just like any ordinary employee.

Fourth. relative to the employer. such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor.500 per month which was until September. In 1996.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Third. She asked for her salary but was informed that she was no longer connected to the company. and respondents are highly dependent on the petitioner for continued work. Petitioner was designated as Acting Manager. She was also designated as Liason Officer to the City of Manila to secure permits for the operation of the company. she was replaced by Liza Fuentes as Manager. Francisco vs NLRC (2006) 500 SCRA 690 Facts: Petitoner was hired by Kasei Corporation during the incorporation stage. does not furnish an independent business or professional service. She was assigned to handle recruitment of all employees and perform management administration functions. Petitioner could always discharge respondents should it find their work unsatisfactory. Kasei Corporation reduced her salary to P2. She was designated as accountant and corporate secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounting needs of the company. She did not anymore 26 M a . In 2001. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . The presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when the worker. The degree of control and supervision exercised by petitioner over respondents through its supervisors negates the allegation that respondents are independent contractors.

By applying the control test. can help in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. NLRC affirmed the decision while CA reversed it. Held: Petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation. (4) the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss. like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls. to give a clearer picture in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on an analysis of the totality of economic circumstances of the worker. (3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer. courts have relied on the socalled right of control test where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. The court held that in this jurisdiction. (2) the extent of the worker’s investment in equipment and facilities. the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties. Court of Appeals. It is therefore apparent that petitioner is economically dependent on respondent corporation for her continued employment in the latter’s line of business. The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. Issue: WON there was an employer-employee relationship. the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activity. and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship. there has been no uniform test to determine the existence of an employer-employee relation. skill. such as: (1) the extent to which the services performed are an integral part of the employer’s business. there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura. 27 M a . judgment or foresight required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise. In Sevilla v. She filed an action for constructive dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. The better approach would therefore be to adopt a two-tiered test involving: (1) the putative employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. and (7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued employment in that line of business. the corporation’s Technical Consultant. (6) the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker and the employer.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case report to work since she was not paid for her salary. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Thus. The proper standard of economic dependence is whether the worker is dependent on the alleged employer for his continued employment in that line of business. In addition to the standard of right-of-control. the court observed the need to consider the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties. (5) the amount of initiative. Generally. in addition to the standard of rightof-control like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case There can be no other conclusion that petitioner is an employee of respondent Kasei Corporation. She was selected and engaged by the company for compensation. Respondent Corporation had the power to control petitioner with the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. 28 M a . Respondent Corporation hired and engaged petitioner for compensation. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . More importantly. Her main job function involved accounting and tax services rendered to Respondent Corporation on a regular basis over an indefinite period of engagement. and is economically dependent upon respondent for her continued employment in that line of business. with the power to dismiss her for cause.

Dr Estrada noted an increase of her blood pressure and development of leg edema indicating preeclampsia which is a dangerous complication of pregnancy. she was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Estrada's treatment and management of Corazon's condition. After examining Corazon. While the Court in Ramos did not expound on the control test. Court of Appeals. technically employees. Estrada. Estrada at his home. In assessing whether such a relationship in fact exists. such test essentially determines whether an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital based on the exercise of control over the physician as to details. Corazon died after giving birth to the child. Estrada and other physicians and a certain nurse for Corazon’s death. Specifically. Petitioners mainly contended that defendant physicians and CMC personnel were negligent in the treatment and management of Corazon's condition. and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship. At the time of Corazon's admission at CMC and during her delivery. with the exception of the payment of wages. an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians. While on her last trimester of pregnancy. the hiring. Estrada. Around midnight of 25 May 1976. vs Capitol Medical Center (2006) G. Court had the occasion to determine the relationship between a hospital and a consultant or visiting physician and the liability of such hospital for that physician's negligence: While "consultants" are not. In Ramos v. Corazon started to experience mild labor pains prompting Spouses Nogales to see Dr. Estrada? Held: CMC is vicariously liable. There was no showing that CMC had a part in diagnosing Corazon's condition. Issue: WON CMC is vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. assisted by Dr. Estrada advised her immediate admission to the Capitol Medical Center. Petitioners charged CMC with negligence in the selection and supervision of defendant physicians and hospital staff.. we rule that for the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases. it was Dr.R. It is undisputed that throughout Corazon's pregnancy. on the basis of the foregoing. Estrada 29 M a . 142625 Facts: Corazon was under the exclusive care of Dr Oscar Estrada beginning the fourth month of her pregnancy. the control exercised. Villaflor. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Eventually.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Nogales et al. the employer (or the hospital) must have the right to control both the means and the details of the process by which the employee (or the physician) is to accomplish his task In the present case. the control test is determining. Dr. who attended to Corazon. the Court finds no single evidence pointing to CMC's exercise of control over Dr. a point which respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition. Dr. which prompted the petitioners to file a complaint for damages against CMC. Accordingly. While Dr.

(2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority. Rather. Estrada with apparent authority thereby leading the Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr. 30 M a . The elements of the action have been set out as follows: "For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority." The element of "holding out" on the part of the hospital does not require an express representation by the hospital that the person alleged to be negligent is an employee. an exception to this principle. Dr. Estrada was an employee or agent of CMC. the hospital need not make express representations to the patient that the treating physician is an employee of the hospital. and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent. CMC cannot now repudiate such authority. a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractorphysician. In this regard. however. There is. Estrada to use its facilities when Corazon was about to give birth. such fact alone did not make him an employee of CMC. consistent with ordinary care and prudence. which CMC considered an emergency. CMC clothed Dr. Estrada is not an employee of CMC. the element is satisfied if the hospital holds itself out as a provider of emergency room care without informing the patient that the care is provided by independent contractors. a plaintiff must show that: (1) the hospital. that the physician is an independent contractor.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case enjoyed staff privileges at CMC. the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in them. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . In the instant case. CMC merely allowed Dr. or should have known. unless the patient knows. This exception is also known as the "doctrine of apparent authority. but an independent contractor. Through CMC's acts. The hospital may be liable if the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital. Sycamore Municipal Hospital. CMC impliedly held out Dr. The doctrine of apparent authority essentially involves two factors to determine the liability of an independent-contractor physician. Estrada as a member of its medical staff. the Illinois Supreme Court explained the doctrine of apparent authority in this wise: Under the doctrine of apparent authority a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at the hospital. In general. regardless of whether the physician is an independent contractor. The first factor focuses on the hospital's manifestations and is sometimes described as an inquiry whether the hospital acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital. acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital. rather a representation may be general and implied. or its agent. Considering these circumstances." In Gilbert v.

was renewed annually. 31 M a . First. he wrote a letter addressed to Dr. Bacolod City. 146881 Facts: Dr. Dean Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. It is sometimes characterized as an inquiry on whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent. The last one expired on December 31. consistent with ordinary care and prudence. 1988. but more importantly because of Dr. Inc. In response.. Estrada's services. Petitioner was already making inquiries regarding his status with the company. the release forms of CMC cannot relieve CMC from liability for the negligent medical treatment of Corazon. Thus. the Spouses Nogales knew or should have known that Dr. The Retainer Agreement. Willie Sy. vs Dr. Dr. Sy wrote a letter to the Personnel Officer of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.00)." In other words. Estrada to handle Corazon's delivery not only because of their friend's recommendation. as earlier stated. When a person needing urgent medical attention rushes to a hospital. there is no showing that before and during Corazon's confinement at CMC. respondent continued to perform his functions as company doctor to CocaCola until he received a letter from petitioner company concluding their retainership agreement effective 30 days from receipt thereof. The records show that the Spouses Nogales relied upon a perceived employment relationship with CMC in accepting Dr. Dr. he cannot bargain on equal footing with the hospital on the terms of admission and operation. Moreover. Climaco (2007) G.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The second factor focuses on the patient's reliance. the Acting President and Chairperson of the Committee on Membership. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Estrada's "connection with a reputable hospital. Rogelio testified that he and his wife specifically chose Dr. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. the [CMC]. He likewise stated that respondent must receive all the benefits and privileges of an employee under Article 157 (b) of the Labor Code. by virtue of a Retainer Agreement for a period of 1 year with a monthly salary of Three Thousand Eight Hundred (P3. Estrada's relationship with CMC played a significant role in the Spouses Nogales' decision in accepting Dr. Even simple negligence is not subject to blanket release in favor of establishments like hospitals but may only mitigate liability depending on the circumstances. Estrada was not an employee of CMC. which began on January 1. Such a person is literally at the mercy of the hospital. Philippine College of Occupational Medicine. Despite the non-renewal of the Retainer Agreement.. Estrada's services as the obstetrician-gynecologist for Corazon's delivery. 1993. stating that respondent should be considered as a regular part-time physician.. having served the company continuously for four (4) years. There can be no clearer example of a contract of adhesion than one arising from such a dire situation.800.R.

In fact. The Court. Complainant does not dispute the fact that outside of the two (2) hours that he is required to be at respondent company’s premises. bills them accordingly -. Reporting at the hospital twice-a-week on twenty-four-hour shifts. 176484 Facts: Calamba Medical Center. which contains the respondent’s objectives. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC correctly found that Coca-Cola lacked the power of control over the performance by respondent of his duties. operating room assistance and discharge billings.800." The Comprehensive Medical Plan. (2) the payment of wages. It is precisely because the company lacks the power of control that the contract provides that respondent shall be directly responsible to the employee concerned and their dependents for any injury. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . where he services his patients. and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct.R. in each case. More often than not. complainant maintains his own private clinic attending to his private practice in the city. in addition to their fixed monthly retainer. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that the Comprehensive Medical Plan. but did not control the means and methods by which respondent performed his assigned tasks. Climaco? Held: No employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. duties and obligations. Also resident physicians were also given a percentage share out of fees charged for out-patient treatments. has invariably adhered to the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee. Calamba Medical Center vs NLRC (2008) G.and if it is an employee of respondent company who is attended to by him for special treatment that needs hospitalization or operation. how to immunize. or the so-called "control test." considered to be the most important element. Ronaldo and Dr.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Issue: WON there exists an employer-employee relationship between Coca-Cola and Dr. (3) the power of dismissal. engaged the services of medical doctors-spouses Dr. harm or damage caused through professional negligence. an employee is required to stay in the employer’s workplace or proximately close thereto that he cannot utilize his time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose.00 each. this is subject to a special billing. in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. provided guidelines merely to ensure that the end result was achieved. respondents were paid a monthly "retainer" of P4. employees of Coca-Cola. incompetence or other valid causes of action. he is not at all further required to just sit around in the premises and wait for an emergency to occur so as to enable him from using such hours for his own benefit and advantage. Merceditha Lanzanas as part of its team of resident physicians. 32 M a . or how to diagnose and treat his patients. does not tell respondent "how to conduct his physical examination.

and the classification as "salary" of their remuneration. Desipeda.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The work schedules of the members of the team of resident physicians were fixed by petitioner's medical director Dr. Ronaldo filed a complaint for illegal suspension and Dr. On March 1998. Merceditha was not given any schedule after sending the Memorandum. Without the approval or consent of petitioner or its medical director. It bears noting at this juncture that mandatory coverage under the SSS Law is premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. no operations can be undertaken in those areas. Trinidad overheard a phone conversation between Dr. respondents were made subject to petitioner-hospital's Code of Ethics. except in cases of compulsory coverage of the self-employed. Dr. Lanzanas are declared employee by the petitioner hospital. 33 M a . Issue: WON there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the spouses-respondents? Held: Drs. it being enough that it has the right to wield the power. and they were issued ID. personnel conduct and behavior. the provisions of which cover administrative and disciplinary measures on negligence of duties. this scheme does not sever the employment tie between them and petitioner as this merely mirrors additional form or another form of compensation or incentive similar to what commission-based employees receive as contemplated in Article 97 (f) of the Labor Code." an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task. the operating room. the identification cards it issued them. enrolled in the SSS and withheld tax from them. More importantly. petitioner itself provided incontrovertible proof of the employment status of respondents. it enrolled respondents in the SSS and Medicare (Philhealth) program. Ronaldo and a fellow employee Diosdado Miscala. That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the undisputed fact that in the emergency room. After an incident where Dr. For control test to apply. Under the "control test. respondents' work is monitored through its nursing supervisors. Moreover. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Moreover. With respect to respondents' sharing in some hospital fees. the payslips and BIR W-2 (now 2316) Forms which reflect their status as employees. charge nurses and orderlies. the former was given a preventive suspension and his wife Dr. namely. and offenses against persons. property and the hospital's interest. or any department or ward for that matter. Merceditha for illegal dismissal. it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee.

C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 34 M a .

morals or public order. Court adopt the modern rule that the validity of restraints upon trade or employment is to be determined by the intrinsinc reasonableness of restriction in each case. moreover. his skill in establishing favorable connections. .R.) Following the rule in Mitchel vs. . Abrahamson returned to Manila and is now a manager of the Philippine Underwear Co. This corporation. The rule in this jurisdiction is that the obligations created by contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and must be enforce in accordance with their tenor. Included in the agreement is a prohibition of Abrahamson from engaging in a similar or competitive business to anywhere within the Philippine Islands for a period of five years. Islands but send material and embroidery designs from New York to its local representative here who employs Filipino needle workers to embroider the designs and make up the garments in their homes. The only difference between plaintiff's business and that of the firm by which the defendant is employed.a multitude of details.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Ollendorff vs Abrahamson (1918) G. and that such restrictions may be upheld when not contrary to afford a fair and reasonable protection to the party in whose favor it is imposed. any further breach of that part of defendant's contract of employment by which he agreed that he would not "enter into or engage himself directly or indirectly . Plaintiff commenced an action to prevent by injunction. none vital if considered alone. A business enterprise may and often does depend for its success upon the owner's relations with other dealers. does not maintain a factory in Phil. . in a similar or competitive business to that of (plaintiff) anywhere within the Philippine Islands for a period of five years . his methods of buying and selling -. Reynolds.the manufacture of the embroidered material into finished garments. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . art 1091." from the date of the agreement. (Civil Code. 13228 Facts: An agreement was entered into by Ollendorff and Abrahamson whereby theformer agreed to employ Abrahamson and the latter bound himself to work for him for a period of 2yrs with a salary of P50 per week." (Civil Code. . Issue: WON the part of the agreement restraining the defendant from engaging into similar business of the plaintiff is void? Held: The contract was not void as constituting an unreasonable restraint of trade. it does not seem so with respect to an employee whose duties are such as of necessity to give him an insight into the general scope and details of his employers business. is the method of doing the finishing work -. rather than by any fixed rule.) The only limitation upon the freedom of contractual agreement is that the pacts established shall not be contrary to "law. The duties performed by the defendant were such to make it necessary for him to be generally knowledgeable of Ollendorff’s business. he had been engaged in similar work for several years even before his employment of the plaintiff’s embroidery business. Examining the contract here in question from this stand point. 1255. unlike Ollendorff’s. After some months from his departure for the US. but which in the aggregate constitute the sum total of the advantages which the result of the experience or 35 M a . Art.

and Daraga of the municipality of Albay. and asked that the same be declared null and void and of no effect. With trifling exceptions. Failure or success may depend upon the possession of these intangible but all important assets. Paragraph 3 of the said contract read as follows: 3." such contracts were valid and not "against the benefit of the state. Later. Issue: WON the provisions and conditions contained in the 3rd paragraph of said contract constitute an illegal and unreasonable restriction upon plaintiffs’ liberty to contract? Held: The contract the annulment of which is sought by the plaintiff is neither oppressive to him. and if they do not go beyond what is reasonably necessary to effectuate this purpose they should be upheld. and it is natural that their possessor should seek to keep them from falling into the hands of his competitors. Albay. the said Alfonso del Castillo also agrees not to open. while the said Shannon Richmond or his heirs may own or have open a drugstore. nor own nor have any interest directly or indirectly in any other drugstore either in his own name or in the name of another. The plaintiff alleges that the provisions and conditions contained in the third paragraph of said contract constitute an illegal and unreasonable restriction upon his liberty to contract. and are unnecessary in order to constitute a just and reasonable protection to the defendant. Del Castillo vs Richmond (1924) G.R. nor have any connection with or be employed by any other drugstore situated within a radius of our miles from the district of Legaspi. nor unreasonably necessary to protect the defendant's business.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case individual aptitude and ability of the man or men by whom the business has been built up. or have an interest in any other one within the limits of the districts of Legaspi. It is with this object in view that such restrictions as that now under consideration are written into contracts of employment. Province of Albay. whereby del Castillo agrees to enter the employ of Richmond as a pharmacist with a monthly remuneration of P125 each month. municipality and Province of Albay. That in consideration of the fact that the said Alfonso del Castillo has just graduated as a pharmacist and up to the present time has not been employed in the capacity of a pharmacist and in consideration of this employment and the monthly salary mentioned in this contract. The law concerning contracts which tend to restrain business or trade has gone through a long series of changes from time to time with the changing conditions of trade and commerce. the rule became well established that if the restraint was limited to "a certain time" and within "a certain place. said changes have been a continuous development of a general rule. L-21127 Facts: Shannon Richmond and Alfonso del Castillo entered into a “Contract of Rendering Services”. are contrary to public policy. nor prejudicial to the public interest. Their purpose is the protection of the employer." Later cases. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . have held that a contract in restraint of trade is valid providing there is a 36 M a . and we think the rule is now well established.

or is not. If the contract is reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the parties. the contract is. (Ollendorff vs. The government. from engaging in a business. will be held invalid. to convincingly establish. A contract. provides a gamut of protective provisions. which is prohibited by petitioner in its company policies. as a condition sine qua non prior to severance of the employment ties of an individual under his employ. it will be upheld. She thus claims that she was discriminated against in gross violation of law. herein private respondent Grace de Guzman. the question is whether. which restrains a man from entering into a business or trade without either a limitation as to time or place. an employer is required. after the expiration of the term of his employment. contrarily argues that what really motivated PT&T to terminate her services was her having contracted marriage during her employment. 585. and the right against. is not void as being in restraint of trade if the restraint imposed is not greater than that which is necessary to afford a reasonable protection. the existence of a valid and just cause in dispensing with the services of such employee. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . under the particular circumstances of the case and the nature of the particular contract involved in it. petitioner Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company (hereafter. such a proscription by an employer being outlawed by Article 136 of the Labor Code. cognizant of the disparity in rights between men and women in almost all phases of social and political life. through substantial evidence. Acknowledged as paramount in the due process scheme is the constitutional guarantee of protection to labor and security of tenure. Issue: WON the policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage is valid? Held: Petitioner’s policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul of the test of. That employee. abhors any 37 M a .R. PT&T) invokes the alleged concealment of civil status and defalcation of company funds as grounds to terminate the services of an employee. to repeat.. one’s labor being regarded as constitutionally protected property. unreasonable Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Co vs NLRC (1997) G. 38 Phil. competitive with that of his employer.) In that case we held that a contract by which an employee agrees to refrain for a given length of time. Abrahamson. 118978 Facts: Seeking relief through the extraordinary writ of certiorari. In all cases like the present.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case limitation upon either time or place. The Constitution. discrimination. afforded all women workers by our labor laws and by no less than the Constitution. however. Thus.

The Labor Code states. the same should not be contrary to law.” In the case at bar. a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated. it may even be said that petitioner’s policy against legitimate marital bonds would encourage illicit or common-law relations and subvert the sacrament of marriage. morals. in the termination notice sent to her by the same branch supervisor. that he agrees to study and abide by existing company rules.” Again.R. Duncan Asso. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . over and on top of that. to resign from the company. among others. Carried to its logical consequences. and conditions that they may deem convenient. discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of marriage. in no uncertain terms. that “you’re fully aware that the company is not accepting married women employee (sic). Tecson signed a contract of employment which stipulates. or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married. a privilege that by all accounts inheres in the individual as an intangible and inalienable right. discharge. (2004) G. 136. was her violation of the company’s policy against marriage (“and even told you that married women employees are not applicable [sic] or accepted in our company.. 162994 Facts: Petitioner Pedro Tecson was hired by respondent Glaxo as medical representative. private respondent was made to understand that her severance from the service was not only by reason of her concealment of her married status but. while it is true that the parties to a contract may establish any agreements. Stipulation against marriage. as it was verbally instructed to you. Of Detailman-PTGWO vs Glaxo Wellcome Phils. or to actually dismiss.” Petitioner’s policy is not only in derogation of the provisions of Article 136 of the Labor Code on the right of a woman to be free from any kind of stipulation against marriage in connection with her employment. to disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies and should management find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest. after Tecson had undergone training and orientation.It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman shall not get married. public order. terms. tending as it does to deprive a woman of the freedom to choose her status.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case stipulation or policy in the nature of that adopted by petitioner PT&T. Thereafter. good customs. as follows: “ART. but it likewise assaults good morals and public policy. Hence. with the reminder. or public policy. The Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo 38 M a . . it can easily be seen from the memorandum sent to private respondent by the branch supervisor of the company.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case similarly provides that an employee is expected to inform management of any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies. 39 M a . This situation eventually led to his constructive dismissal. marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors. Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets. manufacturing formulas. stipulates that Tescon agrees to abide by the existing company rules of Glaxo. In laying down the assailed company policy. Indeed. That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic interests cannot be denied. and to study and become acquainted with such policies. the Employee Handbook of Glaxo expressly informs its employees of its rules regarding conflict of interest. Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures. She was Astra’s Branch Coordinator in Albay and supervised the district managers and medical representatives of her company and prepared marketing strategies for Astra in that area. Issue: WON Glaxo’s policy prohibiting its employees from marrying an employee of a competitor company is valid? Held: Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an employee from having a relationship with an employee of a competitor company is a valid exercise of management prerogative. especially so that it and Astra are rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry. Subsequently. Tecson’s contract of employment with Glaxo being questioned. Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Bettsy. In January 1999. The two married even with the several reminders given by the District Manager to Tecson. Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxo’s products in the Camarines SurCamarines Norte sales area. No reversible error can be ascribed to the Court of Appeals when it ruled that Glaxo’s policy prohibiting an employee from having a relationship with an employee of a competitor company is a valid exercise of management prerogative. Tecson’s superiors reminded him that he and Bettsy should decide which one of them would resign from their jobs. an employee of Astra. In this regard. while our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and the protection of labor. a competitor of Glaxo. The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. it does not mean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor of the workers. No less than the Constitution recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce such a policy to protect its right to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth. The law also recognizes that management has rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Tecson’s superiors informed him that his marriage to Bettsy gave rise to a conflict of interest. although they told him that they wanted to retain him as much as possible because he was performing his job well.

then an employee of the Repacking Section. could be detrimental to its business operations.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Star Paper Corp. respondents were hired after they were found fit for the job. one male and another female) developed a friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married. Issue: WON the policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the same company violates the rights of the employee under the Constitution and the Labor Code or is a valid exercise of management prerogative? Held: Petitioners’ sole contention that "the company did not just want to have two or more of its employees related between the third degree by affinity and/or consanguinity" is lame. discharge. 2. or to be or The requirement that a company policy must be reasonable under the circumstances to qualify as a valid exercise of management prerogative. already employed by the company. discriminate otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage. to Alma Dayrit.. or stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman employee shall deemed resigned or separated. the only way it 40 M a . up to [the] 3rd degree of relationship. The policy is premised on the mere fear that employees married to each other will be less efficient. In case of two of our employees (both singles [sic]. whom he married. It is significant to note that in the case at bar. Petitioners failed to show how the marriage of Simbol. one of them should resign pursuant to a company policy to which Simbol complied. The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact theory.R. the employer can create policies based on an unproven presumption of a perceived danger at the expense of an employee’s right to security of tenure. e. 1. If we uphold the questioned rule without valid justification. Prior to the marriage. 164774 Facts: Simbol was employed by the company on Oct 1993. New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has [a] relative. also an employee of the company. vs Simbol (2006) G. Ongsitco advised the couple that should they decide to get married. or to actually dismiss. then a Sheeting Machine Operator. He met Alma Dayrit. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . but were asked to resign when they married a co-employee. one of them should resign to preserve the policy stated above. Article 136 of the Labor Code which provides: It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married.

in any manner whatsoever. Upon discovering this. Issue: WON the one year employment ban imposed by Solidbank upon Rivera is null and void for being unreasonable and oppressive and for constituting restraint of trade? Held: The post-retirement competitive employment ban is unreasonable because it has no geographical limits. agents or employees.R. clauses. Rivera vs Solidbank (2006) G. effect. public order or public policy. processes. and their successors-in-interest and will not disclose any information concerning the business of Solidbank. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . officers. Although the period 41 M a . Solidbank filed complaint. Solidbank First Vice-President for HRD Celia Villarosa wrote a letter informing Rivera that he had violated the Undertaking. directly or indirectly engage in any unlawful activity prejudicial to the interest of Solidbank. directors. the post-retirement competitive employment ban is unreasonable because it has no geographical limits. Waiver and Quitclaim. deciding to devote his time and attention to his poultry business in Cavite. otherwise. its parent. In Dec 1994. or data of any kind. its manner or operation. their stockholders. appropriate legal action would be taken against him. Solidbank required Rivera to sign an undated Release. Rivera acknowledged receipt of the net proceeds of his separation and retirement benefits and promised that "[he] would not. Rivera applied for retirement." On May 1995. The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate business concern in imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employee’s right to be free from arbitrary discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons working together in one company. terms and conditions as they may deem convenient. morals. On the face of the Undertaking. Subsequently. the Equitable employed Rivera as Manager of its Credit Investigation and Appraisal Division of its Consumers’ Banking Group. respondent is barred from accepting any kind of employment in any competitive bank within the proscribed period. at any time. She likewise demanded the return of all the monetary benefits he received in consideration of the SRP within five (5) days from receipt. provided they are not contrary to law. 163269 Facts: Rivera had been working for the Solidbank since 1977. albeit disproportionate. Article 1306 of the NCC provides that the contracting parties may establish such stipulations. affiliate or subsidiary companies. good customs.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory. when Rivera refused. its plans.

As the Court stated in Ferrazzini v. cases involving contracts in restraint of trade are to be judged according to their circumstances. an international flight steward of Philippine Airlines Inc. should be awarded in favor of the employee as an act of social justice or based on equity. the matter of whether the restriction is reasonable or unreasonable cannot be ascertained with finality solely from the terms and conditions of the Undertaking.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case of one year may appear reasonable. CA reversed the NLRC case. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . to wit: x x x There are two principal grounds on which the doctrine is founded that a contract in restraint of trade is void as against public policy. Waiver and Quitclaim. This is so because his dismissal is not serious misconduct. “Voluntariness basically means that the just cause is solely attributable to the employee without any external force influencing 42 M a .R. One is. Yrasuegui vs Philippine Airlines (2008) G. or even in tandem with the Release. In cases where an employee assails a contract containing a provision prohibiting him or her from accepting competitive employment as against public policy. Neither is it reflective of his moral character. and the other is. the employer has to adduce evidence to prove that the restriction is reasonable and not greater than necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests. 168081 Facts: Petitioner Yrasuegui. when placed in the context of his work as flight attendant. Issue: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner valid. the injury to the party himself by being precluded from pursuing his occupation. but is nonetheless voluntary. the injury to the public by being deprived of the restricted party’s industry. unenforceable for being repugnant to public policy. and thus being prevented from supporting himself and his family. however. In consequence thereof. becomes an analogous cause under Article 282 (e) of the Labor ode. The obesity of petitioner. The restraint may not be unduly harsh or oppressive in curtailing the employee’s legitimate efforts to earn a livelihood and must be reasonable in light of sound public policy. Gsell. Te Labor Arbiter ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL before the Labor Arbiter (LA). Employer is burdened to establish that a restrictive covenant barring an employee from accepting a competitive employment after retirement or resignation is not an unreasonable or oppressive. Held: The Court upheld the legality of the petitioner’s dismissal. It also issued a writ of execution directing the reinstatement of the petitioner without loss of seniority and other benefits. Respondent PAL appealed to the Court of Appeals. Separation pay. and also the payment of backwages. His obesity may not be unintended. thus. (PAL) was dismissed because of his failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company. or in undue or unreasonable restraint of trade. Respondent PAL appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the LA’s decision.

43 M a . or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. In the United States. religion. This element runs through all just causes under Art. religion. there are a few federal and many state job discrimination laws that contain an exception allowing an employer to engage in an otherwise unlawful form of prohibited discrimination when the action is based on a BFOQ necessary to the normal operation of a business or enterprise. is considered voluntary although it lacks the element of intent found in Art. and (d). C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case or controlling his actions. Gross and habitual neglect. (c). Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex. 282 (a). 282. a recognized just cause. or national origin unless the employer can show that sex. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). whether they be in nature of a wrongful action or omission.

more or less. In that demand. the Union explicitly invoked Section 4 (d) of RA 6727 which reads as follows: Where the application of the increases in the wage rates under this Section results in distortions as defined under existing laws in the wage structure within an establishment and gives rise to a dispute therein. working at the various plants. It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings and decide any dispute arising under this 44 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . such dispute shall first be settled voluntarily between the parties and in the event of a deadlock. offices. the same shall be finally resolved through compulsory arbitration by the regional branches of the National Labor Relations Commission having jurisdiction over the workplace.500 employees of San Miguel Corporation.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Ilaw at Buklod Manggagawa vs NLRC (1991) 198 SCRA 586 Facts: The union known as Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM) said to represent 4. and warehouses located at the National Capital Region presented to the company a "demand" for correction of the significant distortion in the workers' wages.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Section within twenty (20) calendar days from the time said dispute is formally submitted to it for arbitration. "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout. shall be referred to the appropriate branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). detailed and comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof. The strike involving the issue of wage distortion is illegal as a means of resolving it. In cases where there are no collective agreements or recognized labor unions. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Any dispute arising from wage distortions shall be resolved through the grievance procedure under their collective bargaining agreement and. It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings and decide the dispute within twenty (20) calendar days from the time said dispute is submitted for compulsory arbitration. thereby implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the issue. if it remains unresolved after ten (10) calendar days of conciliation. the employers and workers shall endeavor to correct such distortions. The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage distortion shall not in any way delay the applicability of the increase in the wage rates prescribed under this Section. such dispute shall be decided by the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators within ten (10) calendar days from the time said dispute was referred to voluntary arbitration. The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or arbitration. The provision states that the employer and the union shall negotiate to correct the distortions. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing. The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage distortion shall not in any way delay the applicability of any increase in prescribed wage rates pursuant to the provisions of law or Wage Order. through voluntary arbitration. It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may be forbidden or restricted by law or contract. lockouts. Chapter I of these implementing rules. Issue: WON the strike is legal in the resolution of wage distortion." Section 3 of Republic Act No. or other concerted activities of the employees or management. after reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration. if it remains unresolved. Held: Strike is not legal as a means of resolving wage distortion. In the instance of "distortions of the wage structure within an establishment" resulting from "the application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue of a law or wage order." 45 M a . declares that. is made clear in the rules implementing RA 6727 issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment pursuant to the authority granted by Section 13 of the Act. The legality of these activities is usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained and the means employed therefore. Section 16. 6727 prescribes a specific. and not by strikes. Any dispute arising there from shall be settled through the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and.

The wage order increased the minimum wage by P17. 1990 pursuant to the authority granted by RA 6727. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Employers Confederation of the Phils vs NWPC (1991) 201 SCRA 759 Facts: ECOP questioned the validity of the wage order issued by the RTWPB dated October 23. 46 M a .00 daily in the National Capital Region.

and (j) The equitable distribution of income and wealth along the imperatives of economic and social development." 47 M a . The Solicitor General in its comment posits that the Board upon the issuance of the wage order fixed minimum wages according to the salary method. The Court agrees with the Solicitor General. Issue: WON the wage order issues by RTWPB dated October 23. the Regional Board shall.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The wage order is applied to all workers and employees in the private sector of an increase of P 17. (b) Wage adjustment vis-a-vis the consumer price index. RA 6727 gave statutory standards for fixing the minimum wage. efficiency and general well-being of the employees within the framework of the national economic and social development program. Held: Wage order is valid. to grant minimum wage adjustments and in the absence of authority. (e) The need to induce industries to invest in the countryside. through RA 6727. (d) The needs of workers and their families. it can only adjust floor wages. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . In the determination of such regional minimum wages. consider the following: (a) The demand for living wages. (f) Improvements in standards of living. Standards/Criteria for Minimum Wage Fixing — The regional minimum wages to be established by the Regional Board shall be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible to maintain the minimum standards of living necessary for the health. among other relevant factors. Petitioners insist that the power of RTWPB was delegated. (i) Effects of employment generation and family income. ART. ECOP appealed with the NWPC but dismissed the petition. (c) The cost of living and changes or increases therein. The floor wage method involves the fixing of determinate amount that would be added to the prevailing statutory minimum wage while the salary ceiling method involves where the wage adjustment is applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary ceiling. It noted that there are two ways in the determination of wage. 124. these are floor wage method and salary ceiling method. (h) Fair return of the capital invested and capacity to pay of employers.00 including those who are paid above the statutory wage rate. (g) The prevailing wage levels. 1990 is valid.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The wage order was not acted in excess of board’s authority. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . The law gave reasonable limitations to the delegated power of the board. Mabeza vs NLRC () 271 SCRA 670 Facts: 48 M a .

together with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employer's scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. she alleged underpayment of wages. The affidavit was drawn by management for the sole purpose of refuting findings of the Labor Inspector of DOLE apparently adverse to the private respondent. she and her coemployees at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio City were asked by the hotel's management to sign an instrument attesting to the latter's compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard provisions of law. Held: The Court ruled that there was unfair labor practice. instead. the act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer observed labor standards provisions of law when he might have not. Issue: WON the employer’s exerted pressure. the hotel's cashier informed her that she should not report to work and. He maintained that there was no basis for the money claims for underpayment and other benefits as these were paid in the form of facilities to petitioner and the hotel's other employees. Responding to the allegations for illegal dismissal.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Petitioner Norma Mabeza contends that on the first week of May 1991. private respondent Peter Ng alleged before Labor Arbiter that petitioner surreptitiously left her job without notice to the management and that she actually abandoned her work. The affidavit was nevertheless submitted on the same day to the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment in Baguio City. 13th month pay. service incentive leave pay. three days after her attempt to return to work. night differential and other benefits. According to her. respondent strongly chided her for refusing to proceed to the City Prosecutor's Office to attest to the affidavit. After she refused to proceed to the City Prosecutor's Office. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . against his employee's right to institute concerted action for better terms and conditions of employment constitutes unfair labor practice. petitioner states that she was ordered by the hotel management to turn over the keys to her living quarters and to remove her belongings from the hotel premises. in the form of restraint. petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission — CAR Baguio City. On April 1994. When she attempted to return to work on May 1991. She thereafter reluctantly filed a leave of absence from her job which was denied by management. Consequently. non-payment of holiday pay. The first act clearly preempts the 49 M a . Petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go to the City Prosecutor's Office to swear to the veracity and contents of the affidavit as instructed by management. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. continue with her unofficial leave of absence. respondent NLRC promulgated its assailed Resolution affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision. Without doubt. In addition to her complaint for illegal dismissal. interference or coercion.

Implicit in the act of petitioner's termination and the subsequent filing of charges against her was the warning that they would not only be deprived of their means of livelihood. More significantly. proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. but also possibly. or the electricity and water consumed by the petitioner were not facilities but supplements. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Finally. that they could only cause trouble to management at great personal inconvenience. For refusing to cooperate with the private respondent's scheme. lodging) but the purpose. their personal liberty. the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employee's wages.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case right of the hotel's workers to seek better terms and conditions of employment through concerted action. such as the private respondent's hotel. the food and lodging. The criterion in making a distinction between the two not so much lies in the kind (food. their ready availability is a necessary matter in the operations of a small hotel. such facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements. Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities. A benefit or privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the employer is not a facility. facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. 50 M a . Considering that hotel workers are required to work different shifts and are expected to be available at various odd hours. the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee. First. These requirements were not met in the instant case. petitioner was obviously held up as an example to all of the hotel's employees. Without satisfying these requirements. Second.

petitioner contends that the interim period to be reckoned with is from January 1. Significantly.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Joy Brothers Inc. petitioner was again denied relief. Series of 1992. 1993 to December 15. 1993 will reflect losses in petitioner corporation's books. NWPC Guidelines No. non-stock. Under Section 5 of Wage Order No. providing for the Revised Guidelines on Exemption indicate the criteria to qualify for exemption as follows: For Distressed Establishments: In the case of a stock corporation. Issue: WON petitioner establishments. non-profit organization or cooperative engaged in a business 51 M a .381. On appeal to the National Wages and Productivity Commission. vs NWPC (1997) 273 SCRA 622 Facts: Wage Order No. the period up to December 31. Corporation falls within the exemption for distressed Held: The petitioner company is not entitled to exemption of the wage order since it is not a distressed establishment.00) and below daily.. The RTWPB denied petitioner's application for exemption after holding that the corporation accumulated profits amounting to P38. 01. single proprietorship. was approved November 29. partnership. petitioner applied for exemption from said wage order on the ground that it was a distressed establishment. NCR-03. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the Wages and Productivity Board on January 5. More specifically. 1993. 1993. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . distressed firms may be exempted from the provisions of the Order upon application with and due determination of the Board. 1995. NCR-03. but not if the covered interim period is only up to September 30. providing for a twenty-seven peso wage increase for all private sector workers and employees in the National Capital Region receiving one hundred fifty-four pesos (P154. 1993 and not merely up to September 30. 1993 as held by respondent Commission. On February 1994.80 for the period under review.

Establishments operating for less than two (2) years may be granted exemption when accumulated losses for said period have impaired by at least 25% the paid-up capital or total invested capital. of the Rules Implementing Wage Order No. Prubankers Association vs Prudential Bank (1999) 302 SCRA 74 Facts: The RTWPB Region V issued Wage Order No. RO VII-02-A into the basic pay of all workers. the branches covered by Wage Order No. Naga and the cities of Davao. The bank granted a COLA of P17. RB VII-03. in the following categories: P17. On June 7. which directed the integration of the COLA mandated pursuant to Wage Order No. On November 1993. Canlaon. 1993. 1994. if any. Talisay.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case activity or charging fees for its services —When accumulated losses for the last 2 full accounting periods and interim period. the only branch covered by Wage Order No.50 in the cities of Naga and Legaspi. Mandaue and Lapulapu.00. immediately preceding the effectivity of the Order have impaired by at least 25 percent the: Paid-up capital at the end of the last full accounting period preceding the effectivity of the Order. The Guidelines expressly require interim quarterly financial statements for the period immediately preceding December 16. Mabolo and P. RTWPB Region VII issued Wage Order No. Consolacion.188. for which years petitioner incurred net profits of P53. Minglanilla. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . as the case may be. and integrated the P150.50 in the municipalities of Tabaco. in the case of corporations: Total invested capital at the beginning of the last full accounting period preceding the effectivity of the Order in the case of partnerships and single proprietorships.00) in the cities of Cebu.50 to its employees at its Naga Branch. Daraga.607. Toledo.00) in the municipalities of Compostela. Liloan. NCR-03 provides that exemption from compliance with the wage increase may be granted to distressed establishments whose paid-up capital has been impaired by at least twenty-five percent (25%) or which registers capital deficiency or negative net worth. RB VII-03. Bais. Dumaguete. Cordova. and for the same period thereafter. Prubankers Association wrote the petitioner requesting that the Labor Management Committee be immediately convened to discuss and resolve the alleged 52 M a .00 and P60. It also established an increase in the minimum wage rates for all workers and employees in the private sector as follows: by Ten Pesos (P10. P15." Section 8. and Tagbilaran. Five Pesos (P5. respectively. RB 05-03 which provided for a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) to workers in the private sector who had rendered service for at least three (3) months before its effectivity. The last two full accounting periods here are 1991 and 1992. and P10. del Rosario branches.00 for all other areas in the Bicol Region.00 per month COLA into the basic pay of its rank-andfile employees at its Cebu. paragraph a. Pili and the city of Iriga. RB 5-03.

The statutory definition of wage distortion is found in Article 124 of the Labor Code. It demanded in the Labor Management Committee meetings that the petitioner extend the application of the wage orders to its employees outside Regions V and VII. The levels of different pay classes was not eliminated. The hierarchy of positions was still preserved. length of service. a wage distortion shall mean a situation where an increase in prescribed wage results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills. As stated." Wage distortion involves four elements: (1) An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates. (3)The elimination of the distinction between the two levels and (4) The existence of the distortion in the same region of the country. the parties agreed to submit the matter to voluntary arbitration. A disparity in wages between employees holding similar positions but in different regions does not constitute wage distortion as contemplated by law.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case wage distortion created in the salary structure upon the implementation of the said wage orders. as amended by Republic Act No. 6727. Issue: WON a wage distortion resulted from respondent's implementation of the Wage Orders. it is the hierarchy of positions and the disparity of their corresponding wages and other emoluments that are sought to be preserved by the concept of wage distortion. or other logical bases of differentiation. As the grievance could not be settled in the said meetings. 53 M a . . claiming that the regional implementation of the said orders created a wage distortion in the wage rates of petitioner's employees nationwide. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 ."As used herein. . which reads: Standards/Criteria for Minimum Wage Fixing — . Held: The court ruled that there is no wage distortion since the wage order implementation covers all the branches of the bank. (2) A significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher one.

Department Manager. Section Manager. petitioners received separation pay computed at the rate of one (1) month basic pay for every year of service. Surigao del Sur. To avert further losses. Believing however that the allowances they allegedly regularly received on a monthly basis during their 54 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Millares et al. Accordingly. Division Manager and Vice President in the mill site of respondent Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) in Bislig. Unit Manager.. In 1992 PICOP suffered a major financial setback allegedly brought about by the joint impact of restrictive government regulations on logging and the economic crisis. vs NLRC () 305 SCRA 501 Facts: Petitioners numbering one hundred sixteen occupied the positions of Technical Staff. it undertook a retrenchment program and terminated the services of petitioners.

or for services rendered or to be rendered and includes the fair and reasonable value. not regularly. as determined by the Secretary of Labor. 97. par. Rule VII. of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code gives meaning to the term as including articles or services for the benefit of the employee or his family but excluding tools of the trade or articles or service primarily for the benefit of the employer or necessary to the conduct of the employer's business. however designated. When an employer customarily furnishes his employee board. lodging or other facilities. In determining whether a privilege is a facility. or other method of calculating the same. whether fixed or ascertained on a time. or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee. Although it is quite easy to comprehend "board" and "lodging." Thus Sec." it is not so with "facilities. or commission basis. constitute income to the latter except if such allowances or benefits are furnished to the employee for the convenience of the employer and as necessary incident to proper performance of his duties in which case such benefits or allowances do not constitute taxable income. Issue: Whether the allowances are included in the definition of "facilities" in Art. and does. (f). C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Held: The allowances are not part of the wages of the employees." Customary is founded on long-established and constant practice connoting regularity. received by petitioners. Book III. and (b) The employee is required to.2… transportation. Revenue Audit Memo Order No. Wage is defined in letter (f) as the remuneration or earnings. 55 M a . task. of board.Board and lodging allowances furnished to an employee not in excess of the latter's needs and given free of charge. 1-87 pertinently provides —3. The receipt of an allowance on a monthly basis does not ipso facto characterize it as regular and forming part of salary because the nature of the grant is a factor worth considering. piece. make an accounting/liquidation for such expense in accordance with the specific requirements of substantiation for such category or expense. 5. being necessary and indispensable for their existence and subsistence. The court agrees with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that the subject allowances were temporarily. capable of being expressed in terms of money. of the Labor Code. lodging. which is payable by an employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work done or to be done. is included in "wage.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case employment should have been included in the computation thereof they lodged a complaint for separation pay differentials. the fair and reasonable value thereof. as determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. the criterion is not so much its kind but its purpose. representation or entertainment expenses shall not constitute taxable compensation if: (a) It is for necessary travelling and representation or entertainment expenses paid or incurred by the employee in the pursuit of the trade or business of the employer.

C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . lodging and other facilities customarily furnished by an employer to his employees. Rule VII. The inevitable conclusion is that subject allowances did not form part of petitioners' wages. 56 M a . 6.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The Secretary of Labor and Employment under Sec. Book III." Petitioners' allowances do not represent such fair and reasonable value as determined by the proper authority simply because the Staff/Manager's allowance and transportation allowance were amounts given by respondent company in lieu of actual provisions for housing and transportation needs whereas the Bislig allowance was given in consideration of being assigned to the hostile environment then prevailing in Bislig. of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code may from time to time fix in appropriate issuances the "fair and reasonable value of board.

from Philippine or other nationalities. the International Covenant on Economic.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case International School Alliance of Educators vs Quisumbing (2000) 333 SCRA 13 Facts: International School. The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty. Inc. Held: Employees are entitled to same salary for performance of equal work. he or she is deemed a foreignhire. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Issue: WON local hire teachers shall enjoy same salary as foreign hire teachers where they perform the same work. otherwise. in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men. effort and 57 M a . and Cultural Rights. which ensure.hires. with equal pay for equal work. The School justifies the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreignhires have to endure. with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind." Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications. Notably. skill. the faculty member is classified as a local hire. is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. and home leave travel allowance. The foregoing provisions impregnably institutionalize in this jurisdiction the long honored legal truism of "equal pay for equal work. shipping costs. Social. taxes. To enable the School to continue carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction. supra. transportation. as a minimum. except laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees. The School employs four tests to determine whether a faculty member should be classified as a foreign-hire or a local hire: (a) What is one's domicile? (b) Where is one's home economy? (c) To which country does one owe economic allegiance? (d) Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and was the School responsible for bringing that individual to the Philippines? Should the answer to any of these queries point to the Philippines. namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure. The compensation scheme is simply the School's adaptive measure to remain competitive on an international level in terms of attracting competent professionals in the field of international education. pursuant to PD 732.. Section 2(c) of the same decree authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad. in Article 7 thereof. These include housing. provides: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favorable conditions of work. in particular: ( a) Remuneration which provides all workers. The School grants foreign-hires certain benefits not accorded local. such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending their employment.

the employer has failed to discharge this burden. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires. In this case. which they perform under similar working conditions. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities. The employer has discriminated against that employee.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case responsibility. the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . it is not for that employee to explain why he receives less or why the others receive more. it is for the employer to explain why the employee is treated unfairly. The Court finds this argument a little inconsiderate. 58 M a . should be paid similar salaries. This rule applies to the School. The School contends that petitioner has not adduced evidence that local-hires perform work equal to that of foreign-hires. If the employer pays one employee less than the rest. under similar conditions. If an employer accords employees the same position and rank.

. Bankard insisted that there was no obligation on the part of the management to grant to all its employees the same increase in an across-the-board manner. a situation where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills. No. its Board of Directors approved a New Salary Scale. 1993. Issue: Whether the unilateral adoption by an employer of an upgraded salary resulted in wage distortion within the contemplation of Article 124 of the Labor Code.00). amending. The New Salary Scale increased the hiring rates of new employees.A.R. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the case was denied. NLRC finding no wage distortion dismissed the case for lack of merit. and Levels II. Inc. 6727 (WAGE RATIONALIZATION ACT. Level II. III and IV by nine hundred pesos (P900. The strike was averted when the dispute was certified by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for compulsory arbitration. Level III. On May 1993. the salaries of employees who fell below the new minimum rates were also adjusted to reach such rates under their levels. Petioner filed a notice of strike. Held: There exists a wage distortion but the Court will not interfere in the management prerogative of the petitioner. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .. regular employees. 59 M a . the duly certified exclusive bargaining agent of the regular rank and file employees of Bankard. made retroactive to April 1. Level IV. Upon the enactment of R. Accordingly.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Bankard Employees Union vs NLRC (2004) G. or other logical bases of differentiation. for the purpose of making its hiring rate competitive in the industry’s labor market.000. Article 124 of the Labor Code). the term "wage distortion" was explicitly defined as. to wit: Levels I and V by one thousand pesos (P1. and Level V. to request for the increase in the salary of its old. This made Bankard Employees Union-WATU (petitioner). length of service. 140689 Facts: Bankard. classifies its employees by levels: Level I. among others.00).

The wordings of Article 124 are clear. not restrictive as it is currently phrased: Article 124. 1993. Involved in the classification of employees are various factors such as the degrees of responsibility. The differing wage rate for each of the existing classes of employees reflects this classification. the skills and knowledge required. the entry of new employees to the company ipso facto places them under any of the levels mentioned in the new salary scale which private respondent adopted retroactive to April 1. Article 124 should thus be construed and correlated in relation to minimum wage fixing. Normally. to wit: (1. through voluntary arbitration. it laid down the four elements of wage distortion. then the language of the law should have been broad. the distinctions embodied in 60 M a . and (4) The existence of the distortion in the same region of the country." the basic assumption is that there exists a grouping or classification of employees that establishes distinctions among them on some relevant or legitimate bases. if it remains unresolved. Put differently. a company has a wage structure or method of determining the wages of its employees. Prudential Bank and Trust Company. the intention of the law being that in the event of an increase in minimum wage.) An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Standards/Criteria for Minimum Wage Fixing. If it was the intention of the legislators to cover all kinds of wage adjustments. or other logical basis of differentiation. it cannot be made the sole basis in cases where the nature of their work differs. Article 124 is entitled "Standards/Criteria for Minimum Wage Fixing. Moreover. (2) A significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher one. WAGE AGREEMENTS AND WAGE DETERMINATION" which principally deals with the fixing of minimum wage. the complexity of the job." It is found in CHAPTER V on "WAGE STUDIES. In a problem dealing with "wage distortion. Where the application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue of a law or Wage Order issued by any Regional Board results in distortions of the wage structure within an establishment. While seniority may be a factor in determining the wages of employees.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case In the case of Prubankers Association v. for purposes of determining the existence of wage distortion. Any dispute arising from the wage distortions shall be resolved through the grievance procedure under their collective bargaining agreement and. employees cannot create their own independent classification and use it as a basis to demand an across-the-board increase in salary. (3) The elimination of the distinction between the two levels. the employer and the union shall negotiate to correct the distortions.

ipso facto result to an obligation to rectify it. An employer would be discouraged from adjusting the salary rates of a particular group of employees for fear that it would result to a demand by all employees for a similar increase. especially if the financial conditions of the business cannot address an acrossthe-board increase. or other logical bases of differentiation will be preserved. the need to increase the competitiveness of Bankard’s hiring rate. If the compulsory mandate under Article 124 to correct "wage distortion" is applied to voluntary and unilateral increases by the employer in fixing hiring rates which is inherently a business judgment prerogative. After a routine inspection. Wage distortion is a factual and economic condition that may be brought about by different causes. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . The mere factual existence of wage distortion does not. the Regional Branch of the Department of Labor and Employment found ANTECO liable for underpayment of the 61 M a . 147420 Facts: Petitioners are monthly-paid employees of ANTECO whose workdays are from Monday to Friday and half of Saturday. absent a law or other source of obligation which requires its rectification. however. or as in the present case. Odango vs NLRC (2005) G.R. then the hands of the employer would be completely tied even in cases where an increase in wages of a particular group is justified due to a re-evaluation of the high productivity of a particular group.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case the wage structure based on skills. length of service.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to money claims.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests monthly salaries of its employees.73 and attorney’s fees of 10%.507. Rule IV. 9 issued by the Secretary of Labor which was declared null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code’s provisions on holiday pay. their claim will still fail. Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. ANTECO failed to (33) monthly-paid employees filed of wage differentials.427.75.412. it also gives rise to an invidious classification. The basic rule in this jurisdiction is "no work. damages and On November 1996. The NLRC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Held: Petitioners are not entitled to money claims or wage differentials.017. Rule IV of Book III gave rise to a right to be paid for un-worked days beyond the ten legal holidays. 62 M a . The Court of Appeals explained that petitioners failed to allege the specific instances where the NLRC abused its discretion. Rule IV of Book III is valid. Petitioners’ line of reasoning is not only a violation of the "no work. The appellate court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then elevated the case to CA where it dismissed the petition for failure to comply with Section 3. Labor Standards Midterm Case 1989. ANTECO appealed the Decision to the NLRC where it reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. the DOLE directed ANTECO to to P1. The petitioners claim is based on Section 2. Petitioners’ claim is based on a mistaken notion that Section 2. On September pay its employees wage differentials amounting pay. a violation of the equal protection clause. no pay" principle. thirty-three complaints with the NLRC praying for payment attorney’s fees. the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision in favor of petitioners granting them wage differentials amounting to P1. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . On various dates in 1995. Book III of the Implementing Rules and Policy Instructions No. Even assuming that Section 2. they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion." The right to be paid for un-worked days is generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year. no pay.

service incentive leave pay. They were required to work for more than 8 hours a day and never enjoyed the minimum benefits. holiday pay. Petitioners appealed with the CA but it was denied. Planas Commercial is a retail establishment principally engaged in the sale of plastic products and fruits to the customers for personal use. Respondents filed an appeal with the NLRC where it granted the money claims. R.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case C. Petitioners filed their comment stating that the respondents were their helpers. Petitioners claim that since private respondents alleged that petitioners employed 24 workers. Allauigan and Ofialda and others filed a complaint for underpayment of wages. 4. Planas Commercial vs NLRC (2005) G. thus the Labor Arbiter is correct in ruling that private respondents’ claim for underpayment has no factual and legal basis. thus exempted from the application of the minimum wage law. including family drivers. Whenever an application for exemption has been duly filed with the 63 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Issue: WON petitioner is exempted from the application of minimum wage law. thus: Sec. retail/service establishments regularly employing not more than ten (10) workers may be exempted from the applicability of this Act upon application with and as determined by the appropriate Regional Board in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations issued by the Commission. 144619 Facts: In September 1993. It said that the company having claimed of exemption of the coverage of the minimum wage shall have the burden of proof to the claim. No. It alleged that Cohu is engaged in the business of wholesale of plastic products and fruits of different kinds with more than 24 employees. 6727 known as the Wage Rationalization Act provides for the statutory minimum wage rate of all workers and employees in the private sector. May 1990 and July 19991 as laborers and were paid below the minimum wage for the past 3 years. that it merely leases and occupies a stall in the Divisoria Market and the level of its business activity requires and sustains only less than ten employees at a time. Section 4 of the Act provides for exemption from the coverage. it was incumbent upon them to prove such allegation which private respondents failed to do. non payment of overtime pay. Petitioners insist that C. and premium pay for rest day and holiday and night shift differential against petitioners in the Arbitration Branch of NLRC. Held: Petitioners have not successfully shown that they had applied for the exemption. (c) Exempted from the provisions of this Act are household or domestic helpers and persons employed in the personal service of another. Also. Respondents were hired on January 1990. Morente.A. Petitioners contend that private respondents were paid over and above the minimum wage required for a retail establishment. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the money claims.R.

the Regional Office thereafter conducted summary investigations. As no restitution was made. regular holiday pay. regular holiday pay. vs CA (2006) Facts: In 1997. action on any complaint for alleged non-compliance with this Act shall be deferred pending resolution of the application for exemption by the appropriate Regional Board. It is admitted that for the Regional Director to exercise the power to order compliance. petitioner failed to appear for two consecutive scheduled hearings. the Notice of Inspection Result was received by and explained to the manager of petitioner corporation Mr. and that private respondents’ claims are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . NCR of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). underpayment of wages. to wit: nonpresentation of employment records (payrolls and daily time records). On August 1997.. overtime pay. Regional Director issued an inspection authority to Senior Labor Enforcement Officer. Issue: WON the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the claims of the private respondents. Petitioner failed to question the findings of the Labor Inspector received by and explained to the corporation’s manager. or 64 M a . employees shall receive the appropriate compensation due them as provided for by this Act plus interest of one percent (1%) per month retroactive to the effectivity of this Act. The Court favors the respondents in the money claims against the petitioner company. private respondents filed a complaint for underpayment of wages. despite due notice. Acting on the complaint. Held: Regional Director has jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant case. non-payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay against petitioner before the Regional Office. However.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case appropriate Regional Board. and overtime pay. EJR Crafts Corp. Jae Kwan Lee. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Order arguing that the Regional Director has no jurisdiction over the case as private respondents were allegedly no longer connected with petitioner corporation at the time of the filing of the complaint and when the inspection was conducted. with the corresponding directive that necessary restitution be effected within five days from said receipt. an inspection was conducted on the premises of petitioner’s offices wherein the following violations of labor standards law were discovered. and non-payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. On the same day. In the event that applications for exemptions are not granted.

00 increase of the salaries receiving minimum wages. In support of its contention that it is the Labor Arbiter and not the Regional Director who has jurisdiction over the claims of herein private respondents. On November 2000. the private respondents were no longer its employees. NCR-08 was issued where it provided the increase of P26. No. it is necessary that the employer-employee relationship still exists. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . RTWPB of NCR issued a wage order which provided for a P 13. the increase provided were followed until RTWPB issued another wage order where it provided for a P25.50 per day increase in the salary of employees receiving the minimum wage and increased the minimum wage to P223. Petitioner forwarded a letter to the union with the list of adjustments involving rank and file employees. petitioner contends that at the time the complaint was filed. we agree with the Undersecretary of Labor and the appellate court that the Regional Director has jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant case in conformity with Article 128(b) of the Labor Code which states: Art. –(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary. 128. The Petitioner and the union negotiated on the increase. the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case the so-called "enforcement power" under Article 128(b) of P. P30 for three succeeding year. except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. The union president asked that the wage order be implemented 65 M a . In September 1999. and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists. Petitioner paid the P25.50 per day.50 per day. Wage Order No. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders.50 per day increase to all of its rank-and-file employees. the petitioner and union entered into an collective bargaining agreement where it provided wage adjustments namely P15. Visitorial and Enforcement Power. 442 as amended. Considering thus that there still exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondents and that the case involves violations of labor standard provisions of the Labor Code. On the first year. P25.D. Pag – Asa Steel Works vs CA (2006) G. 166647 Facts: Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of steel bars and wire rods while Pag-Asa Steel Workers Union is the duly authorized bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.R.

On June 1989." and since the lowest paid is P250.50) per day. but by reason of an act of liberality on the part of the employer. The matter was elevated to CA where it favored the respondents. to ripen into a company practice that is demandable as a matter of right. Wage Order No. and not all employees across-the-board as respondent Union would want petitioner to do. the same would not automatically ripen into a company practice. Equitable PCI Bank vs Sadac (2006) G. Hence. The provision of wage order #8 and its implementing rules are very clear as to who are entitled to the P26. Issue: WON the company was obliged to grant the wage increase under the Wage Order as a matter of practice.50 minimum.50 shall receive an increase of Twenty-Six Pesos and Fifty Centavos (P26. Moreover.R. A perusal of the record shows that the lowest paid employee before the implementation of Wage Order #8 is P250.e. even if the company continuously grants a wage increase as mandated by a wage order or pursuant to a CBA. the giving of the increase should not be by reason of a strict legal or contractual obligation.00/day and none was receiving below P223. accused respondent Sadac of abusive conduct and 66 M a . and subsequently General Counsel thereof on December 1981.50/day increase. nine lawyers of petitioner Bank’s Legal Department.00 minimum wage. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .. Considering therefore that none of the members of respondent Union are receiving salaries below the P250. "private sector workers and employees in the National Capital Region receiving the prescribed daily minimum wage rate of P223. Held: Company is not obliged to grant the wage increase. 164772 Facts: Ricardo Sadac was appointed VP of the Legal Department of petitioner Bank effective August 1981. in a letter-petition to the Chairman of the Board of Directors. i.00/day the company is not obliged to adjust the wages of the workers. It is submitted that employers unless exempt are mandated to implement the said wage order but limited to those entitled thereto. The provision in the CBA that "Any Wage Order to be implemented by the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board shall be in addition to the wage increase adverted above" cannot be interpreted in support of an across-the-board increase. NCR-08 clearly states that only those employees receiving salaries below the prescribed minimum wage are entitled to the wage increase provided therein.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case where petitioner rejected the request claiming that there was no wage distortion and it was not obliged to grant the wage increase. petitioner is not obliged to grant the wage increase to them. The union submitted the matter for voluntary arbitration where it favored the position of the company and dismissed the complaint. This could only mean that the union can no longer demand for any wage distortion adjustment.

" or more fancifully from "sal. upon appeal by the bank. Sadac was removed from his office Labor Arbiter rendered decision that Sadac’s termination was illegal and entitled to reinstatement and payment of full back wages. In reaction thereto. petitioner Bank terminated the services of respondent Sadac. petitioned for a change in leadership of the department. however. Jur. On November 1989. Held: Respondent Sadac cannot take exception by arguing that jurisprudence speaks only of wage and not salary. shelter. p. We said: Broadly." In labor law. under the rules of client and lawyer relationship.839. the word "salary" means a recompense or consideration made to a person for his pains or industry in another man’s business. It is respondent Sadac’s stance that he was not paid at the wage rate nor was he engaged in some form of manual or physical labor as he was hired as Vice President of petitioner Bank. 481. The Labor Arbiter favor Sadac’s computation. Cromwell. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . there is eminent authority for holding that the words "wages" and "salary" are in essence synonymous (Words and Phrases. The Bank opposed to Sadac’s computation. 38 Permanent Edition. Indeed. Sadac requested for a full hearing and formal investigation but the same remained unheeded. "[t]he laborer’s wage shall not be subject to execution or attachment. 496). Div. and therefore." the etymology of which is the Latin word "salarium.03 M representing his back wages and the increases he should have received during the time he was illegally dismissed. On the ground of lack of confidence in Sadac. 89 App. Issue: WON the computation of back wages shall include the general increases. NLRC affirmed the decision upon appeal by the Bank. CA reversed the decision of NLRC. clothing and medical attendance.00 plus privileges. Vol. the distinction appears to be merely semantics.000. After learning of the filing of the complaint. Finally. on August 1989.Y. 841.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case ultimately. The distinction between salary and wage in Gaa was for the purpose of Article 1708 of the Civil Code which mandates that. Court of Appeals where the Court distinguished between wage and salary. respondent Sadac filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages against petitioner Bank and individual members of the Board of Directors thereof. He cites Gaa v. That wage and salary are synonymous has been settled in Songco v. 44 citing Hopkins vs. 85 N. except for debts incurred for food. reversed the decision. Whether it be derived from "salarium. it carries with it the fundamental idea of compensation for services rendered. Paramount and Evangelista may have involved wage earners. 38 Am." the pay of the Roman soldier.S." is often used interchangeably with 67 M a . NLRC. "Salary. the rule is inapplicable to him. petitioner Bank instructed respondent Sadac to deliver all materials in his custody in all cases in which the latter was appearing as its counsel of record. National Labor Relations Commission. Sadac filed for execution of judgment where it gave its computation which amounted to P 6. The reliance is misplaced. but the petitioner in Espejo was a General Manager with a monthly salary of P9.

In another letter inquiry. Upon effectivity of this Wage Order.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case "wage". Powers and Functions of the Commission. The Wage Order was published in a newspaper of general circulation on December 2. R02-03 (Wage Order). the etymology of which is the Middle English word "wagen". x x x (Italics supplied. regardless of the status of employment are granted an across-the-board increase of P15.A. Section 1 is declared valid with respect to employees earning the prevailing minimum wage rate. 144322 Facts: On October 1995. issued Wage Order No. as follows: Section 1. otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization Act. any party aggrieved by the Wage Order may file an appeal with the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) through the RTWPB within 10 calendar days from the publication of the Wage Order. Tuguegarao. 6727 (R. Region II. Its Implementing Rules were approved on February 14.00 daily.The Commission shall have the following powers and functions: (d) To review regional wage levels set by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards to determine if these are in accordance with prescribed guidelines and national development plans. (f) To review plans and programs of the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards to determine whether these are consistent with national 68 M a . 1996. 5th Ed). NWPC referred it to RTWPB. Metrobank asked for the interpretation of the applicability of the wage order. 1995 and took effect on January 1. 121. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .R. Held: Section 1. the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board. RTWPB in return clarified that establishments in Region 2 are Issue: WON the wage order is void thus it has no legal effect and the RTWPB acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Banker’s Council in a letter inquiry to NWPC requested for ruling to seek exemption from coverage of the wage order since the members bank are paying more than the regular wage. Per Section 13 of the Wage Order. The powers of NWPC are enumerated in ART. NWPC replied that the member banks are covered by the wage order and does not fall with the exemptible categories. No. a reward or recompense for services performed. that is. and pursuant to the separability clause of the Wage Order. 6727). Both words generally refer to one and the same meaning. Likewise. Cagayan (RTWPB). R02-03 is void insofar as it grants a wage increase to employees earning more than the minimum wage rate. "pay" is the synonym of "wages" and "salary" (Black’s Law Dictionary.) Metropolitan Bank vs NWPC (2007) G. . Wage Order No. by virtue of Republic Act No. all employees/workers in the private sector throughout Region II. 1996.

A. (g) To exercise technical and administrative supervision over the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards.A.A. No. the RTWPB may issue wage orders which set the daily minimum wage rates. the RTWPB exceeded its authority by extending the coverage of the Wage Order to wage earners receiving more than the prevailing minimum wage rate. No. provinces. R. As correctly pointed out by the OSG. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . expansion and growth. 69 M a . the RTWPB did not determine or fix the minimum wage rate by the "floor-wage method" or the "salary-ceiling method" in issuing the Wage Order. In other words. subject to the guidelines issued by the NWPC. based on the standards or criteria set by Article 124 of the Labor Code. The RTWPB did not set a wage level nor a range to which a wage adjustment or increase shall be added. and to allow business and industry reasonable returns on investment. The Court declared that there are two ways of fixing the minimum wage: the "floorwage" method and the "salary-ceiling" method. 6727 declared it a policy of the State to rationalize the fixing of minimum wages and to promote productivity-improvement and gain-sharing measures to ensure a decent standard of living for the workers and their families. On the other hand. workers already being paid more than the existing minimum wage (up to a certain amount stated in the Wage Order) are also to be given a wage increase. The "floor-wage" method involves the fixing of a determinate amount to be added to the prevailing statutory minimum wage rates. In the present case. 6727 created the NWPC. In doing so.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case development plans. or industries therein and issue the corresponding wage orders. provincial or industry levels. and authorized the RTWPB to determine and fix the minimum wage rates applicable in their respective regions. R. it granted an across-the-board wage increase of P15. vested with the power to prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination of appropriate minimum wage and productivity measures at the regional. No. 6727. to guarantee the rights of labor to its just share in the fruits of production. without a denominated salary ceiling. the Wage Order granted additional benefits not contemplated by R.00 to all employees and workers of Region 2. Instead. In line with its declared policy. to enhance employment generation in the countryside through industrial dispersal. Pursuant to its wage fixing authority. the wage adjustment was to be applied to employees receiving a certain denominated salary ceiling. in the "salary-ceiling" method.

C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 70 M a .

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 71 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .

100222-23 Facts: Subsequent to the initial pleading filed by respondent-employees before the regional director of DOLE for redress in regard to underpaid wages and non-payment of benefits. Issue: Who between the Regional Director of DOLE and the Labor Arbiter has jurisdictional competence over the complaint of private respondents? Held: Regional Director had no jurisdiction over the case.000. 6715.00 fixed by Republic Act No. and (3) the aggregate money claim of the employee or housekeeper does not exceed five thousand pesos (P5. 6715. Thus.000. 6715 or the New Labor Relations Law. the regional director had no jurisdiction over the case. This provision merely confirms/reiterates the enforcement/adjudication authority of the Regional Director over uncontested money claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists. Section 2 of EO No. petitioner Peter Po submitted a motion to dismiss on the supposition that the regional director has no jurisdiction over the case because the employer-employee relationship had been served as a result of the closure of petitioners' business. promulgated on December 24. However. which took effect on March 21.R.000. However. the power to hear and decide employees' claims arising from employer-employee relations. At the re-scheduled examination after closure of petitioners' business on April 16. apart from the fact that each of the claims of private respondents exceeded the jurisdictional limit of P5.00). (2) the claimant. instead of presenting the payrolls and daily time records of private respondents.00 for each employee should be left to the Labor Arbiter as the exclusive repository of the power to hear and decide such claims. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 72 M a . 1989. or househelper under the code. In the instant case. the petition is granted and the public respondent is directed to refer the workers' money claims to the appropriate Labor Arbiter for proper disposition. a simple examination of the labor arbiter's impugned order dated September 25. no longer being employed. 111. petitioners were instructed to allow the inspection of the employment records of respondents on April 4.000. 1989. Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code were amended. 1989 or seven days after the complaint at bar was filed on March 14. which amended Article 128(b) of the Labor Code gives concurrent jurisdiction to both the Secretary of Labor (or the various regional directors) and the labor arbiters over money claims among the other cases mentioned by Article 217 of the Labor Code. Therefore. 1989 readily shows that the aggregate claims of each of the twenty-five employees of petitioner are above the amount of P5. there is no doubt that the regional directors can try money claims only if the following requisites concur: (1) the claim is presented by an employee or person employed in domestic or household service.00 pegged by Republic Act No.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Rajah Humabon Hotel vs Trajano (1993) G. exceeding P5. does not seek reinstatement. no inspection could be done on that date on account of the picket staged by other workers. Hence. 1986. 1989. with the enactment of Republic Act No.

00. except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. No. and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists. can no longer be applied in view of the enactment of R. 131750 Facts: The case started when the Office of the Regional Director. 7730 amending Article 128(b) of the Labor Code. for violation of labor standards laws. We sustain the jurisdiction of the respondent Secretary. Held: Regional Director has jurisdiction over the case citing Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code. the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection.R. 1995. An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under this article may be appealed to the latter. Issue: WON the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the labor standards case. 128 (b) — Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary. as amended. requesting for an investigation of petitioner's establishment. As the respondent correctly pointed out. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . and (3) no service incentive leave with pay. (2) underpayment of 13th month pay. In case said order 73 M a . San Fernando. as amended.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Guico vs Sec of Labor (1998) G. The inspections yielded the following violations involving twenty-one (21) employees who are copier operators: (1) underpayment of wages. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders. La Union. viz: Art. Region I.A. Pursuant to the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representative under Article 128 of the Labor Code.000. inspections were conducted at Copylandia's outlets on April 27 and May 2. this Court's ruling in Servando — that the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor to order and enforce compliance with labor standard laws cannot be exercised where the individual claim exceeds P5. Copylandia Services & Trading. received a letter-complaint dated April 25. 1995.

Loreto sponsored the law. Congressman Veloso categorically declared that "this bill seeks to do away with the jurisdictional limitations imposed through said ruling (referring to Servando) and to finally settle any lingering doubts on the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. an inspection was conducted on the premises of petitioner’s offices on August 22. As found by both Undersecretary of Labor and the Court of Appeals. the said quitclaim and release forms are unreliable and do not correspond to other documents on record which would prove that private respondents were working for the petitioner up to August 1997. overtime pay. 154101 Facts: Sometime in 1997.. 1997 wherein violations of labor standards law were discovered. (Emphasis supplied. EJR Crafts Corp. Veloso and Eriberto V. Petitioner argued that the Regional Director has no jurisdiction over the case as private respondents were allegedly no longer connected with petitioner corporation at the time of the filing of the complaint and when the inspection was conducted. nonpayment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay against petitioner before the Regional Office. NCR of the DOLE. private respondents filed a complaint for underpayment of wages. and that private respondents’ claims are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. regular holiday pay. this Court rules with the Undersecretary of Labor and the appellate court that the Regional Director has jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant case in conformity with Article 128(b) of the Labor Code which states that: 74 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . In his sponsorship speech. an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from. Acting on the complaint."Petitioner's reliance on Servando is thus untenable. vs Court of Appeals (2006) G.R. Considering thus that there still exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondents and that the case involves violations of labor standard provisions of the Labor Code. Held: The Regional Director has jurisdiction over the case. Issue: WON public respondent Regional Director has jurisdiction over the case.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case involves a monetary award.) The records of the House of Representatives show that Congressmen Alberto S.

152396 Facts: Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency. the Regional Office conducted a complaint inspection at the Ambuklao Plant where some violations were noted. Held: The Regional Director has jurisdiction over the claim. is in the business of providing security services while private respondents are EBVSAI's employees assigned to the National Power Corporation at Ambuklao Hydro Electric Plant.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case “Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders. the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have 75 M a . and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists. --. On 7 March 1996. Inc. except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. Bokod. On 20 February 1996.R. Art.x x x (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article[s] 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary. Benguet (Ambuklao Plant).” Ex – Bataan Veterans Security Agency vs Sec of Labor (2007) G. and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists. private respondents led by Alexander Pocding (Pocding) instituted a complaint for underpayment of wages against EBVSAI before the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection. 128 Visitorial and enforcement power. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Issue: WON the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the money claims.

The contract between KUNWHA and CEREBA lasted up to the completion of the project or on 8 September 2000. x x x x The aforequoted provision explicitly excludes from its coverage Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code. In order to divest the Regional Director or his representatives of jurisdiction. the latter failed to pay its employees. Sto. v. Tomas (2008) G.000 because such jurisdiction was exercised in accordance with Article 128(b) of the Labor Code and the case does not fall under the exception clause. the following elements must be present: (a) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon. Sensing. the Regional Director validly assumed jurisdiction over the money claims of private respondents even if the claims exceeded P5. Catholic Vicariate Baguio City vs Hon.167334 Facts: Petitioner contracted KUNHWA to construct the retaining wall of the Baguio Cathedral. In this case.000. except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. 76 M a . and (c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. there is a need to examine evidentiary matters. Consequently. (b) that in order to resolve such issues. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . where we sustained the jurisdiction of the DOLE Regional Director and held that "the visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional Director to order and enforce compliance with labor standard laws can be exercised even where the individual claim exceedsP5. if the labor standards case is covered by the exception clause in Article 128(b) of the Labor Code. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders. KUNWHA. The rules also provide that the employer shall raise such objections during the hearing of the case or at any time after receipt of the notice of inspection results. subcontracted CEREBA Builders (CEREBA) to do the formworks of the church. then the Regional Director will have to endorse the case to the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to [the labor standards provisions of this Code and other] labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection. Inc. This was further affirmed in our ruling in Cirineo Bowling Plaza.R. in turn. KUNWHA failed to pay CEREBA." However.

non-presentation of employment records. and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. and second. Issue: Whether the Secretary of Labor acquired jurisdiction over the appeal considering that this case falls within the exception stated in Article 128(b) of the Labor Code. where the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer. 2000. Records show that. KUNWHA voluntarily settled the deficiencies due the 23 affected workers amounting to P84. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .544. the Secretary of Labor relied on the limitations set forth in Article 128(b) of the Labor Code and ruled. along with 81 other employees.00 The Regional Director dismissed the complaint by reason of the said settlement. He also advised the other employees to ventilate their claims in an appropriate forum considering that no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.40 for each employee. During the pendency of its motion for reconsideration. KUNWHA and petitioner jointly and severally liable to the 82 affected workers in the amount ofP1. complainants were still employed with the respondent CEREBA working for KUNWHA’s project with the Vicariate. where the employeremployee relationship no longer exists.029.x x x 77 M a . There was no proof that the subcontracting agreement between KUNWHA LUZON CONSTRUCTION and CEREBA Builders was terminated as of July 2000. only two (2) limitations are set forth: first. The letters showing the poor performance of CEREBA Builders cannot be considered as a notice of termination of the Subcontracting Agreement for the same do not state so. special and legal holiday premium pay. An inspection of the premises resulted in the discovery of violations of labor standards law. lodged a complaint against CEREBA. KUNWHA and petitioner before the DOLE-CAR Regional Office for nonpayment of wages. Held: Secretary of Labor acquired jurisdiction over the appeal and petitioner is barred by estoppel from raising the issue of jurisdiction. the DOLE-CAR Regional Director issued an Order holding CEREBA. Despite the notice.952. A hearing was set wherein CEREBA manifested its willingness to pay the affected employees on the condition that KUNWHA would pay its obligation to CEREBA. the parties failed to comply. x x x Both of the above-stated limitations are wanting in this case. Petitioner meanwhile manifested that the retention fee due to KUNWHA was sufficient to pay the deficiencies due the affected employees. On March 2001. such as nonpayment of wages and holiday pay from 28 June 2000 to 5 September 2000. thus: It is worthy to note that as regards the power granted to Regional Director by Article 128 of the Labor Code. In resolving this jurisdictional issue. as amended. Petitioner. and others.80 or P12. when this case was filed on August 29. KUNWHA and CEREBA were given five (5) days from receipt of the notice of inspection results to rectify its violations.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Agbucay.560.

jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. Assuming arguendo the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. 2000. the Secretary of Labor. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . In said case. It is undisputed that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact. petitioner also submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Director by taking part in the hearings before him and by submitting a position paper. invoking Odin Security Agency v. the employer-employee relationship between KUNWHA and complainants existed until the completion of the subcontracting agreement on September 18. De la Serna. And. 2000. when the complainants filed this case on August 29.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Succinctly put. Similarly. Considering this. since no written notice was served to respondent CEREBA Builders terminating the Subcontracting Agreement. the Regional Director validly acquired jurisdiction over the case. 78 M a . during the initial hearing of this case at the Regional Office.x x x It is also equally important to note that. the respondents failed to contest the findings of the Labor Employment and Enforcement Officer. It was only when respondent KUNWHA filed its Motion for Reconsideration from the Order dated March 12. the issue of jurisdiction is clearly intertwined with the existence of employeremployee relationship. The respondents failed to present employment records and any evidence to controvert the findings despite the reasonable period of time afforded them. 2001 of the Regional Director that it submitted documents which the Vicariate now alleged to be not verifiable in the summary nature of the labor inspection Moreover. it was only when the order of the Regional Director was modified did petitioner question the former’s jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. correctly declared that petitioner is now estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional Director when it actively participated in the proceedings held therein.

But petitioner asserted that he was a regular employee having been engaged to perform works which are "usually necessary or desirable" in respondents' business. good faith must be presumed in this case. Petitioner had been employed as watchman from 1 May 1995 to 30 May 1998 when he was terminated on the ground that the project he was assigned to was already finished. In his Comment on the Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining and/or Preliminary Injunction filed with the Court of Appeals on 22 November 2001. These payroll sheets clearly indicate that petitioner did receive a daily salary of P141. and from 12 January to 31 May 1998. Held: Appellate Court was right. Neither did he do so when he moved for reconsideration of the 8 May 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals.R.00. petitioner did not raise this procedural issue. To counter petitioner's assertions. This belated submission spells doom for petitioner. Respondent Undaloc Construction. It is only now before this Court that petitioner proffered the same. being entries in the course of business. an examination of the Court of Appeals rollo belies petitioner as it confirms that the alleged missing documents were in fact attached to the petition. while as a general rule. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . respondents submitted typewritten and signed payroll sheets from 2 September to 8 December 1996. absent any evidence to the contrary. a single proprietorship owned by Cirilo Undaloc. 155034 Facts: The controversy started with a complaint filed by petitioner against Undaloc Construction and/or Engineer Cirilo Undaloc for illegal dismissal. is engaged in road construction business in Cebu City. Hence. he being allegedly a project employee. from 26 May to 15 June 1997.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Sapio vs Undaloc Construction (2008) G. enjoy the presumption of regularity under Rule 130. the burden of evidence shifts to the employee and it is incumbent upon him to adduce clear and 79 M a . Moreover. underpayment of wages and nonpayment of statutory benefits. when fraud is alleged in the preparation of the payroll. More fundamentally. Section 43 of the Rules of Court. Issue: WON the Appellate court erred in failing to dismiss respondent's petition for certiorari brought before it on the ground that respondents failed to attach certified true copies of the NLRC's decision and resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer. Entries in the payroll.

The rule is that. the appeal was dismissed and the DOLE-NCR Regional Director’s order was declared final and executory. whether motion to reduce appeal bond allowed in appeals to the Secretary of Labor. petitioner's bare assertions of fraud do not suffice to overcome the disputable presumption of regularity. were hired by respondent Panay Veteran’s Security and Investigation Agency. Since respondents did not do either of the aforementioned things. In consequence. Hence. During such inspection.R. with such violation. they filed a complaint for violation of labor standards in the regional office of the (DOLE-NCR). Alonso. the Regional Director of DOLE-NCR adopted the findings of the inspector. to perfect an appeal of the Regional Director’s order involving a monetary award in cases which concern the visitorial and enforcement 80 M a . Issues: WON there was a perfected appeal. They were not given new assignments and their benefits (including 13th month pay. overtime pay and holiday pay as well as wage differentials due to underpayment of wages) were withheld by respondent security agency. Inc. (FII) in Sta. Agapay and Samillano A.) Respondents failed to perfect their appeal in the manner prescribed by the Labor Code. Respondents moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Respondents filed an appeal (with motion to reduce cash or surety bond) to the SOLE. Jr. Thus. Rosa. The latter conducted an inspection of the respondent security agency. respondent was not able to present its payroll as well as the daily time records submitted by the petitioners. they can question the notice to the DOLE-NCR within 5 days. 167708 Facts: Petitioners Edgardo M. Inc. Secretary of Labor vs Panay Veterans Security and Investigation Agency (2008) G. They were stationed at the plant site of Food Industries. Hon. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. The SOLE denied reconsideration. Laguna until FII terminated its contract with respondent security agency. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Unfortunately. DOLE inspector issued a notice of inspection and concomitantly explained to the respondents that they have to comply with labor standards by paying the claims of the petitioners or otherwise. Held: 1. The SOLE found that respondents failed to perfect their appeal since they did not post a cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case convincing evidence in support of his claim.

[8] It further claimed that its members are also entitled to be paid their separation pay pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement with MARCOPPER and pursuant to Book IV. it encroached on the rule-making power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. each agency is governed by its own rules of procedure. the case is hereinafter referred to as the“environmental incident case. Section 3(b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code. 1996. 4(b) of the Labor Code’s implementing rules.” The word “only” makes it clear that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer’s appeal may be perfected 2. In other words.R. IV of the NLRC against MARCOPPER for nonpayment of wages. In other words. On April 10. it filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases does not sanction the suppletory resort to the rules of procedure of the NLRC. By ruling that the rules of procedure of the NLRC should be applied suppletorily to respondents’ appeal to the Secretary of Labor of Employment.” NAMAWU claimed that due to the indefinite suspension of MARCOPPER’s operations. separation pay. the appeal must be filed and the cash or surety bond equivalent to the monetary award must be posted within ten calendar days from receipt of the order. 81 M a .) No. In the exercise of their respective jurisdictions. The legislative intent to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that “an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. in violation of its Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). the rules of procedure of the NLRC are different from (and do not apply in) cases cognizable by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. the CA effectively amended the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases. 1996) under Rule X. Unlike the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Failure either to file the appeal or post the bond within the prescribed period renders the order final and executory.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. In the process. damages. NAMAWU was the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file workers of MARCOPPER. its members were not paid the wages due them for six months (from April 12. However. National Mines and Workers Union vs Marcopper Mining Corp (2008) G. 174641 Facts: On April 1996. on matters that are not covered by the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases. ]no provision in the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases governs the filing of a motion for the reduction of the amount of the bond. the suppletory application of the Rules of Court is authorized. Book III. The jurisdiction of the NLRC is separate and distinct from that of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. and attorney’s fees. the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) ordered the indefinite suspension of MARCOPPER’s operations for causing damage to the environment of the Province of Marinduque by spilling the company’s mine waste or tailings from an old underground impounding area into the Boac River. 1996 to October 12. Rule I.

The CA decision decreeing the termination of employment of those involved in the illegal strike case had already been issued at that time. Inc) for illegal deduction. and that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of certification of non-forum shopping. 179652 Facts: Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against People’s Broadcasting Service. posted the required bond for three non-striking employees. PAG-IBIG and Philhealth before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. 82 M a . The employment of the NAMAWU officers and members had been declared terminated on March 7. MARCOPPER. resulting in a decision by the NLRC on November 11. contending that NAMAWU had not been authorized by the individual employees – the real parties-in-interest – to file the complaint. We subsequently ruled on the same issue during the time the environmental incident case was pending before the NLRC. Saet. for the pendency of another action between the same parties. 1995 as a result of their failure to return to work after their strike of February 27. 1995 due to an earlier illegal strike. when the NLRC dismissed MARCOPPER’s appeal for failure to file the requisite appeal bond corresponding to the 615 NAMAWU members. Thus. 1996 declaring the strike illegal. Rogelio Regencia and Jose Romasanta. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . VII. premium pay for holiday and rest day and illegal diminution of benefits..R. MARCOPPER appealed the decision to the NLRC. Issue: Whether CA erred in ruling that there was no need for MARCOPPER to post an appeal bond. delayed payment of wages and non-coverage of SSS. Inc. People’s Broadcasting vs Secretary of DOLE (2009) G. In the context of the NLRC appeal bond that is directly at issue. Held: The CA was correct in reversing the dismissal of MARCOPPER’s appeal for failure to file an appeal bond. 1995. 13th month pay. namely: Apollo V.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case MARCOPPER denied liability. Thereafter. In this appeal. however. and for lack of factual and legal basis. (Bombo Radyo Phils. the termination of employment of these NAMAWU members was already a settled matter that the NLRC was in no position to disregard. non-payment of service incentive leave. 2000 appeal to the NLRC that it should be excused from filing an appeal bond with respect to the NAMAWU members who were no longer company employees. it also moved that it be allowed not to post an appeal bond for 615 NAMAWU members – former MARCOPPER employees who had been dismissed effective March 7. the illegal strike litigation commenced. MARCOPPER had every reason to claim in its April 10.Cebu City.

the determination of which should be comprehensive and intensive and therefore best left to the specialized quasijudicial body that is the NLRC. Petitioner maintained that there is no employer-employee relationship had ever existed between it and respondent because it was the drama directors and producers who paid. the Acting DOLE Secretary dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitioner did not post a cash or surety bond and instead submitted a Deed of Assignment of Bank Deposit.00.[ On appeal to the DOLE Secretary. In his Order dated 27 February 2004. the existence of an employeremployee relationship is a matter which is not easily determinable from an ordinary inspection. particularly documents found in the employer’s office are the primary source materials. claiming that the Regional Director gave credence to the documents offered by respondent without examining the originals. the question of employeremployee relationship becomes a battle of evidence. petitioner denied once more the existence of employer-employee relationship. but at the same time he missed or failed to consider petitioner’s evidence. While documents. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Order. Clearly the law accords a prerogative to the NLRC over the claim when the employeremployee relationship has terminated or such relationship has not arisen at all. the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection on 23 September 2003. Rodolfo M. 726. necessarily so.000. In the Inspection Report Form.” Petitioner was required to rectify/restitute the violations within five (5) days from receipt. with the parties eventually ordered to submit their respective position papers. summary investigations were conducted. The intricacies and implications of an employeremployee relationship demand that the level of scrutiny should be far above the cursory and the mechanical. Held: Secretary of Labor has the power to determine the existence of an employeremployee relationship. thus. the Labor Inspector wrote under the heading “Findings/Recommendations” “non-diminution of benefits” and “Note: Respondent deny employer-employee relationship with the complainant. supervised and disciplined respondent. Sabulao (Regional Director) ruled that respondent is an employee of petitioner.30. In its Order dated 27 January 2005. 83 M a . Issue: Whether the Secretary of Labor has the power to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. In the second situation especially. It also added that the case was beyond the jurisdiction of the DOLE and should have been considered by the labor arbiter because respondent’s claim exceeded P5. its current state as well as accepted contemporary practices in the industry. what may prove decisive are factors related to the history of the employer’s business operations.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case On the basis of the complaint. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. because the elements of such a relationship are not verifiable from a mere ocular examination. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . and that the former is entitled to his money claims amounting to P203. More often than not. DOLE Regional Director Atty. No rectification was effected by petitioner.see Notice of Inspection results. The reason is obvious.

wage order. If the Secretary of Labor proceeds to exercise his visitorial and enforcement powers absent the first requisite. Such prerogatival determination. At least a prima facie showing of such absence of relationship. at the same time. since employees are entitled to a different set of rights under the Labor Code from the employer as opposed to non-employees. 128 (b). Among these differentiated rights are those accorded by the “labor standards” provisions of the Labor Code. which the Secretary of Labor is mandated to enforce. two important questions must be resolved: (1) Does the employer-employee relationship still exist. rather than an administrative official of the executive branch of the government. as in this case. is needed to preclude the DOLE from the exercise of its power. If there is no employer-employee relationship in the first place. his office confers jurisdiction on itself which it cannot otherwise acquire. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . such determination is merely preliminary. as the dissent proposes. cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and enforcement power itself. the actual existence of an employer-employee relationship affects the complexion of the putative findings that the Secretary of Labor may determine. This is the meaning of the clause “in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists” in Art. especially if he were an employee. Reading of Art. or alternatively. and. was there ever an employer-employee relationship to speak of. The rationale underlying this limitation is to eliminate the prospect of competing conclusions of the Secretary of Labor and the NLRC.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case 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. Thus. on a matter fraught with questions of fact and law. The Secretary of Labor would not have been precluded from exercising the powers under Article 128 (b) over petitioner if another person with better-grounded claim of employment than that which respondent had. the duty of the employer to adhere to those labor standards with respect to the non-employees is questionable. which is best resolved by the quasi-judicial body. could have very well enjoined other employees to complain with the DOLE. however. 84 M a . petitioner could ill-afford to disclaim an employment relationship with all of the people under its aegis. The determination of the existence of employer-employee relationship is still primarily lodged with the NLRC. before the DOLE may exercise its powers under Article 128. which is the NRLC. Necessarily. the Labor Code and any labor law. one which the legislative branch is entitled to impose. and (2) Are there violations of the Labor Code or of any labor law? The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a statutory prerequisite to and a limitation on the power of the Secretary of Labor. or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto. incidental and collateral to the DOLE’s primary function of enforcing labor standards provisions. Indeed. and enforcing. Respondent. 128 of the Labor Code reveals that the Secretary of Labor or his authorized representatives was granted visitorial and enforcement powers for the purpose of determining violations of.

Reynaldo C. 9. Maraan) of the Department of Labor and Employment-National Capital Region (DOLE-NCR). all private sector workers and employees in the National Capital Region receiving daily wage rates of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P250. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . respondent National Union of Workers in Hotel. through its President. Upon the effectivity of this Wage Order.. 9. the issue is which is at the very heart of this case. Restaurant and Allied Industries-Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter (Union). It grants P30.R.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The most important consideration for the allowance of the instant petition is the opportunity for the Court not only to set the demarcation between the NLRC’s jurisdiction and the DOLE’s prerogative but also the procedure when the case involves the fundamental challenge on the DOLE’s prerogative based on lack of employer-employee relationship. Acting on Rasing's letters. In the first Inspection. Rasing (Rasing). Due to the Second request for inspection. vs National Union of Workers in Hotel Restaurant & Allied Industries – Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter (2009) G. 9. while there was an on-going compulsory arbitration before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) due to a bargaining deadlock between the Union and Dusit Hotel.00) up to TWO HUNDRED NINETY PESOS (P290. Rasing sent Dir. the DOLE-NCR sent Labor Standards Officer Estrellita Natividad (LSO Natividad) to conduct an inspection of Dusit Hotel premises on 24 April 2002. the report showed that Dusit Hotel is exempt from complying with WO no.00 5 November 2001 P15.00 ECOLA to particular employees and workers of all private sectors. 181972 Facts: Wage Order No. Phil Hoteliers Inc. took effect on 5 November 2001. the DOLE’s prerogative hinges on the existence of employer-employee relationship.00) per day payable in two tranches as follows: Amount of ECOLA Effectivity P15. sent a letter 4 to Director Alex Maraan (Dir.00) shall receive an emergency cost of living allowance in the amount of THIRTY PESOS (P30. and requesting immediate assistance on this matter. On 24 May 2002. identified as follows in Section 1 thereof: Section 1. As exhaustively discussed here.00 1 February 2002 On 20 March 2002. approved by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB) of the National Capital Region (NCR). reporting the noncompliance of Dusit Hotel with WO No. DOLE representative conducted another round of inspection and the Labor Standards Officer noted the following in her inspection report: * Non-presentation of records/payrolls 85 M a . Maraan another letter following-up his previous request for assistance. And the evidence clearly indicates private respondent has never been petitioner’s employee.

The Notice of Inspection Result was duly received by Dusit Hotel Assistant Personnel Manager Rogelio Santos. and to submit any question on the findings of the labor inspector within the same period.00/month Effective January 1. would already be receiving salaries beyond the coverage of WO No. 9.00. issued the Order 10 directing Dusit Hotel to pay 144 of its employees the total amount of P1. 5/01 to present.P600.P500. for lack of merit.P550.00/month Effective January 1. Dusit Hotel filed a Motion for Reconsideration 13 of the DOLE-NCR Order dated 22 October 2002. Maraan. corresponding to their unpaid ECOLA under WO No. 11 as amended by Republic Act No. for non-compliance with WO No. 8188. 9 despite the increases in their salaries. along with the hotel employees' share in the service charges. through Dir. and dismissing the complaint of the Union against Dusit Hotel. 6727. the NLRC rendered a Decision 9 dated 9 October 2002 in NLRC-NCRCC No. an order of compliance would be issued. Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration of Dusit Hotel. resolving the bargaining deadlock between Dusit Hotel and the Union.00/month On 22 October 2002.240. Issues: Whether the 144 hotel employees were still entitled to ECOLA granted by WO No. DOLE-NCR issued a Resolution 14 on 27 December 2002. 2003 . the 144 hotel employees. ordered by 86 M a . 2002 . In the meantime. DOLE-NCR. covered by the DOLE-NCR Order of 22 October 2002.218. the penalty of double indemnity. already rendered the DOLE-NCR Order moot and academic. there are one hundred forty-four (144) affected in the implementation of Wage Order No. setting aside its earlier Order dated 22 October 2002 for being moot and academic. Accordingly. retroactive to 1 January 2001. With the increase in the salaries of the hotel employees ordered by the NLRC Decision of 9 October 2002. the DOLE-NCR issued a Notice of Inspection Result directing Dusit Hotel to effect restitution and/or correction of the noted violations within five days from receipt of the Notice. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . and awarding salary increases under the CBA to hotel employees retroactive to 1 January 2001. plus. based on the results of the second inspection of Dusit Hotel premises. arguing that the NLRC Decision dated 9 October 2002.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case * Based on submitted payrolls & list of union members by NUWHRAIN-DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO Chapter. 9. 000215-02 — the compulsory arbitration involving the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) deadlock between Dusit Hotel and the Union — granting the hotel employees the following wage increases. pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. in consideration of the NLRC Decision dated 9 October 2002. 2001 . otherwise. NCR-09-> ECOLA covering the periods from Nov. in accord with the CBA: Effective January 1.

pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. reveals that the said Notice did not contain such an advice. 9. In case the service charge is abolished. to wit: Article 96. Held: The Court rules in the negative. restaurants and similar establishments shall be distributed at the rate of eighty-five percent (85%) for all covered employees and fifteen percent (15%) for management. The lack of advice deprived Dusit Hotel of the opportunity to decide and act accordingly within the five-day period. as amended by Republic Act No. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Undoubtedly. gratification by the hotel of one does not result in the satisfaction of the other. By 22 October 2002. Maraan. Service charges. 6727.240. already issued its Order directing Dusit Hotel to pay 144 of its employees the total amount of P1. 9. it is equally mindful of the protection that the law accords to capital. Series of 1998.218. 10. While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class. Although the Notice directed Dusit Hotel to correct its noted violations within five days from receipt thereof. Although the Court is mindful of the fact that labor embraces individuals with a weaker and unlettered position as against capital. Whether Dusit Hotel is liable for the double indemnity for violation of the wage order. it was not sufficiently apprised that failure to do so within the given period would already result in its liability for double indemnity. the hotel employees' right to their shares in the service charges collected by Dusit Hotel is distinct and separate from their right to ECOLA.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case NLRC in the latter's Decision dated 9 October 2002. if any. through Dir. Under Section 2 (m) of DOLE Department Order No. the DOLE-NCR. — All service charges collected by hotels. plus the penalty of double indemnity. A careful review of the Notice of Inspection Result dated 29 May 2002. together with the officer's recommendation and computation of the unpaid benefits due each worker with an advice that the employer shall be liable for double indemnity in case of refusal or failure to correct the violation within five calendar days from receipt of notice". The share of employees shall be equally distributed among them. Since Dusit Hotel is explicitly mandated by the afore-quoted statutory provision to pay its employees and management their respective shares in the service charges collected. 8188. The Court. pursuant to Article 96 of the Labor Code of 1991. however. It must be noted that the hotel employees have a right to their share in the service charges collected by Dusit Hotel. the share of the covered employees shall be considered integrated in their wages. corresponding to their unpaid ECOLA under WO No. finds no basis to hold Dusit Hotel liable for double indemnity. as to avoid the penalty of double indemnity. it should not be supposed that every labor 87 M a .00. the hotel cannot claim that payment thereof to its 82 employees constitute substantial compliance with the payment of ECOLA under WO No. 30 the Notice of Inspection Result "shall specify the violations discovered. issued herein by the DOLENCR to Dusit Hotel.

Management also has its own rights which. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . as such. are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. 88 M a .

C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 89 M a .

Said motion was denied by the lower Court. said court rendered judgment in favor of respondent Europhil Industries. Roxas on August 1. 1974. a writ of garnishment was issued pursuant to which Deputy Sheriff Cesar A.M. Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. Held: Petitioner is not covered by Article 1708 since she does not fall within the criteria of laborer. while petitioner Rosario A. commission and or remuneration" are exempted from execution under Article 1708 of the New Civil Code. commission and/or remuneration. On December 12. and the surroundings of the hotel. Europhil Industries commenced an action (in the Court of First Instance of Manila for damages against petitioner for having perpetrated certain acts that Europhil Industries considered a trespass upon its rights. the Court of Appeals held that petitioner is not a mere laborer as contemplated under Article 1708 as the term laborer does not apply to one who holds a managerial or supervisory position like that of petitioner. and coordinating the activities of all housekeeping personnel so as to ensure the cleanliness. Kalaw Street. and removing its name from the building directory and gate passes of its officials and employees". where petitioner was then employed.000. In dismissing the petition. of El Grande Hotel. Manila. shelter. but only to those laborers occupying the lower strata. Gaa was then the building administrator. Article 1708 of the Civil Code provides: “The laborer's wage shall not be subject to execution or attachment. controlling. namely. public areas. The said decision having become final and executory. responsible for planning. garnishing her "salary. cutting of its electricity. maintenance and orderliness of all guest rooms. P5.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Gaa vs Court of Appeals (1985) 140 SCRA 304 Facts: It appears that respondent Europhil Industries Corporation was formerly one of the tenants in Trinity Building at T. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . directing.00 as actual damages." Petitioner then filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a motion to lift said garnishment on the ground that her "salaries." It is beyond dispute that petitioner is not an ordinary or rank and file laborer but a responsibly place employee.00 as moral damages. P5. 1975 served a Notice of Garnishment upon El Grande Hotel. Issue: WON the Petitioner is covered by Article 1708 of the New Civil Code.000. 1973.000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs. ordering petitioner to pay the former the sum of P10. On June 28. except for debts incurred for food. Considering the importance of petitioner's 90 M a . clothing and medical attendance. function rooms.

1987.Cagayan de Oro Factory represented by WATU. on March 30. With regard to the 91 M a . In August 1987. The NLRC affirmed the dismissals on November 2. the NLRC issued a resolution denying the motions for reconsideration. The NLRC issued a resolution on June 5. 1988. 1988. In spite of that order. 1988. and on August 5. the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and issued a return to work order. 1988. Makati Administration Office. whose pertinent disposition regarding the union's demand for liberalization of the company's retirement plan for its workers. 1987. However. On September 1987. the union struck. and such persons are more in need of the exemption than any others. Union of Filipro Employees [UFE]). 1987. the Makati office and Cagayan de Oro factory on September 11. On September 8. the company was able to conclude a CBA with the union at the Cebu/Davao Sales Office. 1988. Petitioner is definitely not within that class. We do not think that the legislature intended the exemption in Article 1708 of the New Civil Code to operate in favor of any but those who are laboring men or women in the sense that their work is manual.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case function in El Grande Hotel. UFE was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all regular rank-and-file employees at the petitioner's Cagayan de Oro factory. all expired on June 30. After conciliation efforts of the NCMB yielded negative results. the UFE declared a bargaining deadlock. as well as its Cebu/Davao Sales Office.. On January 26. The union assailed the validity of those agreements and filed a case of unfair labor practice against the company on November 16. vs NLRC (1991) 193 SCRA 504 Facts: Four CBAs separately covering the petitioner's employees in its Alabang/Cabuyao factories. 1989. (Both Alabang/Cabuyao factories and Makati office were represented by the respondent. Nestle Phils Inc. 1987 up to December 8. The company retaliated by dismissing the union officers and members of the negotiating panel who participated in the illegal strike. Persons belonging to this class usually look to the reward of a day's labor for immediate or present support. UFE filed a notice of strike on the same ground of CBA deadlock and unfair labor practices. and Cebu/Davao Sales Offices represented by the Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS). C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . the employees at Cabuyao resorted to a "slowdown" and walk-outs prompting the petitioner to shut down the factory. with the Cagayan de Oro factory workers. without notice. while the parties were negotiating. at the Alabang/Cabuyao factory. the dispute was certified to the NLRC. Marathon collective bargaining negotiations between the parties ensued. it is undeniable that petitioner is occupying a position equivalent to that of a managerial or supervisory position.

vacation. the Union's demand to increase the benefits due the employees under said plan. midyear bonuses. almost all of the benefits that the petitioner has granted to its employees under the CBA — salary increases. Nestle has the sole and exclusive prerogative to define the terms of the plan because the workers have no vested and demandable rights. Consequently. Issue: WON the workers have vested and demandable rights over the retirement plan. is a valid CBA issue. The petitioner's contention. has no merit for employees do have a vested and demandable right over existing benefits voluntarily granted to them by their employer. the plan assumes a consensual character which cannot be terminated or modified at will by either party.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Retirement Plan. It should be left to the discretion of the company on how to improve or modify the same. eliminate or diminish such benefits. Petitioner alleged that since its retirement plan is non-contributory. boost their morale and efficiency and promote industrial peace. health and dental services. The fact that the retirement plan is non-contributory. As a matter of fact..e. medical and hospitalization plans. i. the plan is specifically mentioned in the previous bargaining agreements thereby integrating or incorporating the provisions thereof to the agreement. does not make it a non-issue in the CBA negotiations. Held: The employees have a vested and demandable right over the retirement plan. gives "a consensual character" to the plan so that it may not be terminated or modified at will by either party. At most the company can only be directed to maintain the same but not to change its terms. the grant thereof being not a contractual obligation but merely gratuitous. the NLRC held that anent management's objection to the modification of its Retirement Plan. By reason of its incorporation. it becomes part and parcel of CBA negotiations. that the employees contribute nothing to the operation of the plan. that employees have no vested or demandable right to a non-contributory retirement plan. Since the retirement plan has been an integral part of the CBA since 1972. 13th and 14th month pay. 92 M a . The latter may not unilaterally withdraw. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . The inclusion of the retirement plan in the collective bargaining agreement as part of the package of economic benefits extended by the company to its employees to provide them a measure of financial security after they shall have ceased to be employed in the company. seniority pay. reward their loyalty. sick & other leaves with pay — are noncontributory benefits. rice allowances.

he was held up by his armed passenger who took all his money and thereafter stabbed him.00 for air-conditioned taxi or P450. while driving a taxicab of petitioners on September 1983. However.00 deposit to answer for any deficiency in their boundary. In January. Petitioners learned that he was working for Mine of Gold Taxi Company. he went to this home province to recuperate. He was hospitalized and after his discharge. as such.00 for car washing. and to further make a P15. but his working schedule was made on an alternative basis where he drove only every other day. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . he already failed to report for work for unknown reasons. Aside from the daily boundary of P700. they were also required to pay P20. for every actual working day. With respect to Sabsalon. they worked for 4 days weekly on a 24-hour shifting schedule. Also.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Five J Taxi vs NLRC (1992) 235 SCRA 556 Facts: Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon were hired by the petitioners as taxi drivers and. he 93 M a .00 for the previous day.00 for non-air-conditioned taxi. 1991. Sabsalon failed to remit his boundary of P700. he failed to report for work during his schedule. on several occasions. On September 22. 1987. In less than 4 months after Maldigan was hired as an extra driver by the petitioners. Sabsalon was re-admitted by petitioners as a taxi driver under the same terms and conditions as when he was first employed.

except when the employer is engaged in such trades. the same does not apply to or permit deposits to defray any deficiency which the taxi driver may incur in the remittance of his boundary. Despite repeated requests of petitioners for him to report for work. or is necessary or desirable as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate rules and regulations. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . there is no dispute that as a matter of practice in the taxi industry. Sometime in 1989. — No employer shall require his worker to make deposits from which deductions shall be made for the reimbursement of loss of or damage to tools. or equipment supplied by the employer. private respondents filed a complaint with the manila Arbitration Office of the National Labor Relations Commission charging petitioners with illegal dismissal and illegal deductions. 1991. Maldigan requested petitioners for the reimbursement of his daily cash deposits for 2 years.00." Consequently. occupations or business where the practice of making deposits is a recognized one. amounts to the prohibition provided by law. considered a prohibition regarding wages.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case abandoned his taxicab in Makati without fuel refill worth P300. On November 27. petitioners terminated his services. The deposits made were illegal and the respondents must be refunded. When Maldigan insisted on the refund of his deposit. complainant(s) (private respondents herein) were made to shoulder the expenses for washing. Issue: WON the deductions made were illegal and if illegal. the amount doled out was paid directly to the person who washed the unit. but herein petitioners told him that not a single centavo was left of his deposits as these were not even enough to cover the amount spent for the repairs of the taxi he was driving. private respondents are not entitled to the refund of the P20.00 car wash 94 M a . materials. Held: The Court declares that the deposits made. the labor arbiter had this to say in his decision: "Anent the issue of illegal deductions. he adamantly refused. Article 114 of the Labor Code provides as follows: Deposits for loss or damage. thus we find nothing illegal in this practice. after a tour of duty. Afterwards it was revealed that he was driving a taxi for Bulaklak Company. Clearly. On the matter of the car wash payments. much more (sic) to consider the amount paid by the driver as illegal deduction in the context of the law. it is incumbent upon the driver to restore the unit he has given to the same clean condition when he took it out. materials or equipments supplied by the employer. on his part. Sabsalon. claimed that his termination from employment was effected when he refused to pay for the washing of his taxi seat covers. It can be deduced that the said article provides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to tools. and as claimed by the respondents (petitioners in the present case). This was allegedly the practice adopted by petitioners to recoup the expenses incurred in the repair of their taxicab units.

MEWA informed MERALCO of its intention to renegotiate the terms and conditions of their existing 1992-1997 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covering the remaining period of two years starting from December 1. Manila Electric Co vs Sec of Labor (1999) G. 1995 and formed a CBA negotiating panel for the purpose. 1995. car washing after a tour of duty is a practice in the taxi industry. On November 10. Also. 1995 to November 30. dictated by fair play. On September 7. and is. 95 M a . 127598 Facts: MEWA is the duly recognized labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of MERALCO. as the Solicitor General correctly noted. which.R. 1997. MEWA submitted its proposal to MERALCO. if they wanted to save their P20.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case payments they made. MERALCO signified its willingness to re-negotiate through its letter dated October 17. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 1995. It will be noted that there was nothing to prevent private respondents from cleaning the taxi units themselves. in fact.00. in turn.

As a rule. To be considered a “regular practice. 1996. collective bargaining negotiations proceeded. Thereafter. Held: The members of MEWA are entitled to the benefits although in the form of benefits which is a subject of the negotiation of CBA. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case presented a counter-proposal. despite the series of meetings between the negotiating panels of MERALCO and MEWA. Issue: Whether the members of MEWA are entitled to benefits given as bonuses. to continue giving said benefits knowing that such act was not required by law. However. The considerable length of time MERALCO has been giving the special grants to its employees indicates a unilateral and voluntary act on its part. it can not be denied that these were given voluntarily and continuously on or about Christmas time. on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practices. the giving of the special bonus can no longer be withdrawn by the company as this would amount to a diminution of the employee’s existing benefits. NLRC: “The test or rationale of this rule on long practice requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing fully well that said employees are not covered by the law requiring payment thereof. a company practice favorable to the employees has been established and the payments made by MERALCO pursuant thereto ripened into benefits enjoyed by the employees. 96 M a . aside from complying with the regular 13 th month bonus. While the special bonuses differed in amount and bore different titles. MERALCO filed a petition to let the Secretary of DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the case which was granted. and must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate. Indeed.” the giving of the bonus should have been done over a long period of time. MEWA filed a Notice of Strike with the National Capital Region Branch of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which was docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-04-152-96. The NCMB then conducted a series of conciliation meetings but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. has further been giving its employees an additional Christmas bonus at the tail-end of the year since 1988.” In this case. the record shows the MERALCO. Consequently. being negotiated in the CBA.” On April 23. it may nevertheless be granted on equitable consideration as when the giving of such bonus has been the company’s long and regular practice. the parties failed to arrive at “terms and conditions acceptable to both of them. The ruling in National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation.

2) as well as moral damages and attorney’s fees in the amount of P300. MOLINA filed a complaint against members of the liquidation team. 2 became mandated a P12-increase in the daily wage of employees whose monthly salary did not exceed P4.802. The documents attached show that the Bank has been consistently using the factor of 365 days in computing your equivalent monthly salary prior to its being placed under receivership by the Central Bank. whose re-employment commenced on 15 June 1985. Issue: Whether Molina is entitled to wage increase computation that used the 365 days factor. Molina claimed that his salary should have been adjusted in compliance with said wage orders. Held: Molina is entitled to the wage increase computation using the 365 days as factor.16. the Bank reverted to the old practice/policy of using factor 365 days in computing your equivalent monthly rate salary. Meanwhile.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Philippine Veterans Bank vs NLRC (1999) G.654.R. And when R.60 at the time of his dismissal on 31 January 1992. they were ordered to pay Molina the wage differentials due him under W. its employees. The liquidation team countered that MOLINA was not entitled to any salary increase because he was already receiving a monthly salary of P6. NCR-01 and NCR-02 (hereafter W. 1 and W. Labor Arbiter rejected the 26. prescribing a P17-increase in the daily wage of employees whose monthly salary did not exceed P3. among them Molina.O. On 11 May 1991. Molina.60. Consequently.O.08. some of petitioner’s former employees were rehired. petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank was placed under receivership by the Central Bank (now Bangko Sentral).O. W. This is evident in the wage and allowance increases granted under previous Presidential Decrees and Wage Orders. the NLRC sustained the labor arbiter’s ruling after concluding that Molina was a regular employee of petitioner with a basic monthly salary of P3. entitled to the wage increases mandated by the aforesaid wage orders. 6640 went into force.A 6727 took effect.000. therefore. where the rest days are unworked but paid. adopting instead the factor of “365 days.16 factor used by the liquidators in computing the daily wage of MOLINA.. including private respondent Dr. He was. On appeal. Petitioner was subsequently placed under liquidation on 15 June 1985.754. 130439 Facts: In 1983. This is also indicated in the appointment and service records of bank personnel who started out as daily paid employees and were eventually promoted as permanent employees with fixed monthly salaries.” Consequently.e.A. when R. LlB – 2 97 M a .319. were terminated from work and given their respective separation pay and other benefits. 1 took effect on November 1990.O. which were given by the Bank on monthly basis. The complaint demanded the implementation of Wage Orders Nos. To assist in the liquidation.O. Jose Teodorico V.O. 1 and W. However. i. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 . On the other hand. 2. the Bank unilaterally reduced the factor to 262 instead of maintaining factor 365 as was the practice/policy long before the effectivity of the Act. W.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case May we add that the old practice of the bank in using factor 365 days in a year in determining equivalent monthly salary cannot unilaterally be changed by your employer without the consent of the employees. the use of the 365 factor is binding and conclusive. It cannot be doubted that the 365 factor favors petitioner’s employees because it results in a higher determination of their monthly salary. It is clear that respondent is entitled to the wage increase under R.16 factor would be a diminution of a labor benefit. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . is a bilateral contract and as such either party thereto cannot change or amend the terms thereof without the consent of the other party thereto. Evidently. such practice being now a part of the terms and conditions of your employment.A. whether written or unwritten. 98 M a . forming as it did part of the employment contract. An employment agreement. To abandon such policy and revert to its old practice of using the 26. 6440 computed on the basis of 365 paid days and to the corresponding salary differentials as a result of the application of this factor. which is prohibited by the Labor Code.

leaving the following items unresolved: wages. rice subsidy. On January 2000. respondent union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB. It rendered decision fixing the amount of wage increase and directed to conclude a CBA to include the items granted in the conference. Upon conclusion of the CBA negotiations. Labor Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and. Laguna. due to the bargaining deadlock. respondent union went on strike at the petitioner’s plant. respondent union accepted petitioner’s proposals on fourteen items. Region IV in Calamba. Petitioner claims that this bonus was promised as a unilateral incentive for the speeding up of negotiations between the parties and to encourage respondent union to exert their best efforts to conclude a CBA.R. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 1999.00 to each employee as an “early conclusion bonus”. 000. vs Court of Appeals (2004) G. petitioner offered the amount of P4. petitioner accordingly gave this early signing bonus. On October 22. In view of the expiration of this CBA. which constrained it to file a petition before the Department of Labor and Employment. 99 M a . At the meeting. The conciliation meetings started with eighteen unresolved items between petitioner and respondent union. The strike lasted for eleven days and resulted in the stoppage of manufacturing operations as well as losses for petitioner. 1999. respondent union sent notice to petitioner of its desire to negotiate a new CBA. A few days later. signing.. Petitioner and respondent union began their negotiations. respondent union expressed dissatisfaction at the outcome of the negotiations and declared a deadlock. Petitioner and respondent union failed to arrive at an agreement concerning these four remaining items. Issue: Whether the signing bonus is covered under the maintenance of existing benefits. ordered the striking workers to return to work within twenty-four hours from notice and directed petitioner to accept back the said employees. 149434 Facts: During the collective bargaining negotiations between petitioner and respondent union in 1997. on October 26. and retroactive bonus.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Philippine Appliance Corp. Petitioner contested on the awarding of signing bonus. on January 2000. after eleven meetings.

Austria conducted by BOHLER. and marketing of BOHLER steel products. Held: The employer cannot withhold respondent’s 13th month pay and other monetary benefits. Hence. In return. commissions. Special Steel Products vs Villareal (2004) G. When So returned. Article 116 of the Labor Code. Previous to that. In January 1997. Respondent does not contest the fact that petitioner initially offered a signing bonus only during the previous CBA negotiation. Inc. that is. as amended. the petitioner asked respondent So to sign a memorandum to work for the company for three years. True. respondents also demanded payment of their separation benefits.” however. It rewarded So’s outstanding sales performance. and must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate.R. provides: 100 M a .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Held: The payment of signing bonus is not covered under the existing benefits. To be considered a “regular practice.. The test or rationale of this rule on long practice requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to continue giving the benefits knowing fully well that said employees are not covered by the law requiring payment thereof. monetary benefits but petitioner refused and withheld the 13 th month pay and other benefits. Respondent So was sponsored by petitioner to attend a training course in Kapfenberg. Issue: WON the employer can withhold its employee’s wages and benefits as lien to protect its interest as surety in the car loan and for expenses in the training abroad. 143304 Facts: Special Steel Products. Petitioner ordered respondents an accounting of the various Christmas giveaways they received. Villareal obtained a car loan from Bank of Commerce with petitioner as surety wherein they are jointly and severally agreed to pay the bank in installment basis. sale. the giving of the bonus should have been done over a long period of time. it may nevertheless be granted on equitable considerations as when the giving of such bonus has been the company’s long and regular practice. during the 1997 CBA negotiation. After 2 years and 4 months. is a domestic corporation engaged in the principal business of importation. Villareal resigned and joined HiGrade Industrial and Technical Products as Executive vice-president. the giving of such bonus cannot be deemed as an established practice considering that the same was given only once. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . So resigned from the company. Respondents worked for petitioner as assistant manager and salesman. The Court has consistently ruled that a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation. there is no evidence on record that petitioner ever offered the same or that the parties included a signing bonus among the items to be resolved in the CBA negotiation.

Thus. 158693 Facts: Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements. 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work. or violated their memorandum of agreement. is engaged in the business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. Indeed. Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims and on December 28. to withhold any amount from the wages (and benefits) of a worker or induce him to give up any part of his wages by force. stealth.R. A termination for an authorized cause requires payment of separation pay. 1992 until February 23. petitioner has no legal authority to withhold respondents’ 13th month pay and other benefits. threat or by any other means whatsoever without the worker’s consent. an employer cannot simply refuse to pay the wages or benefits of its employee because he has either defaulted in paying a loan guaranteed by his employer. intimidation. Agabon vs NLRC (2004) G. entitles them benefits. the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the dismissals illegal and ordered private respondent to pay the monetary claims. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 .” The above provision is clear and needs no further elucidation. Inc. Held: The dismissal is legal and entitles them of payment of benefits. Dismissals based on just causes contemplate acts or omissions attributable to the employee while dismissals based on authorized causes involve grounds under the Labor Code which allow the employer to terminate employees. 1999. – It shall be unlawful for any person. Issue: WON respondent’s dismissal is illegal and if not. When the termination of employment is LlB – 2 101 M a . It employed petitioners Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2. What an employee has worked for. or failed to render an accounting of his employer’s property.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case “Withholding of wages and kickbacks prohibited. directly or indirectly. his employer must pay.

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

declared illegal, reinstatement and full back wages are mandated under Article 279. If
reinstatement is no longer possible where the dismissal was unjust, separation pay may
be granted.
Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282, the
employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to
be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice
specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an opportunity to be
heard and after hearing or opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss;
and (2) if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the
employer must give the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment
written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation.
From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived: (1) the dismissal is for
a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an authorized cause under Article
283, or for health reasons under Article 284, and due process was observed; (2) the
dismissal is without just or authorized cause but due process was observed; (3) the
dismissal is without just or authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the
dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not observed.
In the fourth situation, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural infirmity
cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However, the employer should
be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process. The
present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The dismissal should be upheld
because it was established that the petitioners abandoned their jobs to work for another
company. Private respondent, however, did not follow the notice requirements and
instead argued that sending notices to the last known addresses would have been
useless because they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private
respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin notice
requirements to the employee’s last known address. Thus, it should be held liable for
non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.
The Court ruled that respondent is liable for petitioners’ holiday pay, service incentive
leave pay and 13th month pay without deductions. The evident intention of Presidential
Decree No. 851 is to grant an additional income in the form of the 13 th month pay to
employees not already receiving the same so as “to further protect the level of real
wages from the ravages of world-wide inflation.” Clearly, as additional income, the 13th
month pay is included in the definition of wage under Article 97(f) of the Labor Code.
American Wire & Cable Daily Rated Employees vs American Wire (2005) G.R.
155059
Facts:
American Wire and Cable Co., Inc., is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of wires
and cables. There are two unions in this company, the American Wire and Cable
Monthly-Rated Employees Union and the American Wire and Cable Daily-Rated
Employees Union.
On 16 February 2001, an original action was filed before the NCMB of the Department of
Labor and Employment by the two unions for voluntary arbitration. They alleged that

102 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

the private respondent, without valid cause, suddenly and unilaterally withdrew and
denied certain benefits and entitlements which they have long enjoyed. These are
Service Award, 35% premium pay of an employee’s basic pay for the work rendered
during Holy Monday, Holy Tuesday, Holy Wednesday, December 23, 26, 27, 28 and 29,
Christmas Party and Promotional Increase.
Issue: WON the respondent company violated Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Held: The company is not guilty of violating Art. 100 of the Labor Code.
Article 100 of the Labor Code provides:
PROHIBITION AGAINST ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS. – Nothing in
this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements, or
other employee benefits being enjoyed at the time of promulgation of this Code.

The certain benefits and entitlements are considered bonuses. A bonus can only be
enforceable and demandable if it has ripened into a company practice. It must also be
expressly agreed by the employer and employee or it must be on a fixed amount.
The assailed benefits were never subjects of any agreement between the union and the
company. It was never incorporated in the CBA. Since all these benefits are in the form
of bonuses, it is neither enforceable nor demandable.

Honda Philippines Inc., vs Samahang Manggagawa sa Honda (2005) G.R.
145561
Facts:
The case stems from the collective bargaining agreement between Honda and the
respondent union that it granted the computation of 14 th month pay as the same as 13th
month pay. Honda continues the practice of granting financial assistance covered every

103 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

December each year of not less than 100% of the basic salary. In the latter part of 1998,
the parties started to re-negotiate for the fourth and fifth years of the CBA. The union
filed a notice of strike on the ground of unfair labor practice for deadlock.
DOLE assumed jurisdiction over the case and certified it to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration. The striking employees were ordered to return to work and management to
accept them back under the same terms prior to the strike staged. Honda issued a
memorandum of the new computation of the 13 th month and 14th month pay to be
granted to all its employees whereby the 31 long strikes shall be considered unworked
days for purpose of computing the said benefits. The amount equivalent to ½ of the
employees’ basic salary shall be deducted from these bonuses, with a commitment that
in the event that the strike is declared legal, Honda shall pay the amount.
The respondent union opposed the pro-rated computation of bonuses. This issue was
submitted to voluntary arbitration where it ruled that the company’s implementation of
the pro-rated computation is invalid.
Issue: WON the pro-rated computation of the 13 th and 14th month pays and other
bonuses in question is valid and lawful.
Held: The pro-rated computation is invalid.
The pro-rated computation of Honda as a company policy has not ripened into a
company practice and it was the first time they implemented such practice.
The payment of the 13th month pay in full month payment by Honda has become an
established practice. The length of time where it should be considered in practice is not
being laid down by jurisprudence. The voluntary act of the employer cannot be
unilaterally withdrawn without violating Article 100 of the Labor Code.
The court also rules that the withdrawal of the benefit of paying a full month salary for
13th month pay shall constitute a violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code.

104 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

Producers Bank vs NLRC () 335 SCRA 506
Facts:
Petitioner was placed by Central Bank of the Philippines (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas)
under a conservator for the purpose of protecting its assets. When the respondents
ought to implement the CBA (Sec. 1, Art. 11) regarding the retirement plan and
pertaining to uniform allowance, the acting conservator of the petition expressed
objection resulting an impasse between the petitioner bank and respondent union. The
deadlock continued for at least six months. The private respondent, to resolve the issue
filed a case against petitioner for unfair labor practice and flagrant violation of the CBA.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the petition. NLRC reversed the findings and ordered the
implementation of the CBA.
Issue: WON the employees who have retired have no personality to file an action since
there is no longer an employer-employee relationship.
Held: Employees who have retired still have the personality to file a complaint.
Retirement results from a voluntary agreement between the employer and the
employee whereby the latter after reaching a certain age agrees to sever his
employment with the former. The very essence of retirement is the termination of
employer-employee relationship.
Retirement of the employee does not in itself affect his employment status especially
when it involves all rights and benefits due to him, since these must be protected as
though there had been no interruption of service. It must be borne in mind that the
retirement scheme was part of the employment package and the benefits to be derived
therefrom constituted as it were a continuing consideration of services rendered as well
as an effective inducement foe remaining with the corporation. It is intended to help the
employee enjoy the remaining years of his life.
When the retired employees were requesting that their retirement benefits be granted,
they were not pleading for generosity but merely demanding that their rights, embodied
in the CBA, be recognized. When an employee has retired but his benefits under the law
or CBA have not yet been given, he still retains, for the purpose of prosecuting his
claims, the status of an employee entitled to the protection of the Labor Code, one of
which is the protection of the labor union.

105 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

Held: The deduction made for the car wash is not illegal. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .R. the court views that it is not illegal in the context of the law. Car washing after a tour of duty is indeed a practice in the taxi industry and is in fact dictated by fair play." Petitioners used to drive private respondent’s taxicabs every other day on a 24-hour work schedule under the boundary system. Philjama International Inc. it is incumbent upon the driver to restore the unit he has driven to the same clean condition when he took it out. Believing that the deduction is illegal. and on succeeding days. private respondent refused to let petitioners drive their taxicabs when they reported for work on August 6.00 daily. 106 M a . 1992. Hence. the labor arbiter dismissed said complaint for lack of merit. In Five J Taxi vs. petitioners decided to form a labor union to protect their rights and interests. In a dated August 31. the drivers are not entitled to reimbursement of washing charges. NLRC. a domestic corporation engaged in the operation of "Goodman Taxi. 1991.. the petitioners earned an average of P400. We note that after a tour of duty. Petitioners suspected that they were singled out because they were the leaders and active members of the proposed union. petitioners filed with the labor arbiter a complaint against private respondent for unfair labor practice.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Jardin vs NLRC (2000) G. Issue: WON the deduction for the washing of taxi units is illegal. illegal dismissal and illegal deduction of washing fees. private respondent admittedly regularly deducts from petitioners’ daily earnings the amount of P30.00 supposedly for the washing of the taxi units. Under this arrangement. Nevertheless. Upon learning about the plan of petitioners. 119268 Facts: Petitioners were drivers of private respondent. Aggrieved.

.m. Article IV. Subsequently. petitioner questioned the above office memorandum as violative of the prohibition against non-diminution of wages and benefits guaranteed under Section 1. On April 3. the hours of work of regular monthly-paid employees shall be from 1:00 p. respondent issued an inter-office memorandum declaring that. upheld respondent's prerogative to change the work schedule of regular monthly-paid employees under Section 2. to 5:00 p. the employees are precluded from rendering their usual overtime work from 5:00 p. The CBA governed the economic rights and obligations of respondent’s regular monthly paid rank-and-file employees. a corporation with a legislative franchise to conduct. 2001. in a decision dated October 18. 1999. operate and maintain horse races. to 9:00 p. of the CBA which specified the work schedule of respondent's employees to be from 9:00 a. when horse races are held.m.m.R.m. however. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 p.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Manila Jockey Club Employees Labor Union vs Manila Jockey Club (2007) G. the parties agreed to a 7-hour work schedule from 9:00 a. of the CBA.m. On October 12. Petitioner claimed that as a result of the memorandum. Issue: WON the respondent violated the non-diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code. 1996 to December 31. maintained the 9:00 a. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the panel denied the motion. to 5:00 p. that is. 1999. petitioner and respondent entered into an Amended and Supplemental CBA retaining Section 1 of Article IV and Section 2 of Article XI. 107 M a .m. 1999. to 8:00 p. The memorandum.m. and clarified that any conflict arising therefrom shall be referred to a voluntary arbitrator for resolution.m.m. every Tuesday and Thursday. before a panel of voluntary arbitrators of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). on a work week of Monday to Saturday. Inc. The NCMB’s panel of voluntary arbitrators. Article XI.m. 167601 Facts: Petitioner Manila Jockey Club Employees Labor Union-PTGWO and respondent Manila Jockey Club. In the CBA. supra. to 5:00 p. 2000.m. schedule for non-race days. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . effective April 20. entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective January 1.

deliberately and unconditionally. 1993 a "no time card policy" whereby the Supervisory I and II composing of the supervising security guards of the Beer Division were no longer required to punch their time cards.. Thus. The overtime pay was not given to each employee consistently. Petitioner’s argument. 1993. They started working as guards with the petitioner San Miguel Corporation assigned to the Beer Division on different dates until such time that they were promoted as supervising security guards. Et al. Consequently. holiday and night premium duty through time card punching. overtime pay does not fall within the definition of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code on prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits. that the change in work schedule violates Article 100 of the Labor Code because it resulted in the diminution of the benefit enjoyed by regular monthly-paid employees of rendering overtime work with pay. the private respondents were availing the benefits for overtime. but as a compensation for additional services rendered. 149640 Facts: Respondents were among the "Supervisory Security Guards" of the Beer Division of San Miguel Corporation. the time cards were ordered confiscated and the latter were no longer allowed to render overtime work. vs Layoc Jr. San Miguel Corp. As a result of the Decentralization Program. Corollary. of the CBA does not guarantee overtime work for all the employees but merely provides that "all work performed in excess of seven (7) hours work schedule and on days not included within the work week shall be considered overtime and paid as such.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Held: The respondent did not violate the principle of non-diminution of benefits. From the commencement of their employment. but only those employees whose services were needed after their regular working hours and only upon the instructions of management. the private respondents were required to punch their time cards for purposes of determining the time they would come in and out of the company's work place. is untenable. in lieu of the overtime pay and the premium pay. on January 16. However.. However. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . the San Miguel Corporation embarked on a Decentralization Program aimed at enabling the separate divisions of the San Miguel Corporation to pursue a more efficient and effective management of their respective operations. in the early 1990's. (2007) G." Respondent was not obliged to allow all its employees to render overtime work everyday for the whole year. the Beer Division of the San Miguel Corporation implemented on January 1. Article IV. therefore. the personnel of the Beer Division of the petitioner San Miguel Corporation affected by the "No Time Card Policy" were given a 108 M a . The provision of the CBA also grants respondent the prerogative to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work. without prior consultation with the private respondents.R. Section 1.

San Miguel Corp vs Pontillas (2008) G. respondent filed an action for recovery of damages due to discrimination under Article 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (Labor Code). night shift differential (Article 86).000.00 to P2. against petitioner. as well as for recovery of salary differential and backwages.00 a month. Ricardo F. On 6 December 1993. undertime not offset by overtime (Article 88).m. Issue: Whether the circumstances in the present case constitute an exception to the rule that supervisory employees are not entitled to overtime pay. meal periods (Article 85). San Miguel Corporation (petitioner) employed Angel C." respondents could not demand overtime pay from petitioners if respondents did not render overtime work. hours worked (Article 84).500.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case 10% across-the-board increase on their basic pay while the supervisors who were assigned in the night shift (6:00 p. respondent became a monthlypaid employee which entitled him to yearly increases in salary. It is thus clear that. These benefits do not require any additional service from their beneficiaries. Held: Article 82 of the Labor Code states that the provisions of the Labor Code on working conditions and rest periods shall not apply to managerial employees The other provisions in the Title include normal hours of work (Article 83). Aside from their allegations. and violation of the equal protection clause and due process of law in relation to paragraphs 6 and 8 of Article 32 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. emergency overtime work (Article 89). On 19 October 1993. Hence. Thus. The requirement of rendering additional service differentiates overtime pay from benefits such as thirteenth month pay or yearly merit increase. Respondents failed to show that the circumstances of the present case constitute an exception to this general rule. generally.R. managerial employees such as respondents are not entitled to overtime pay for services rendered in excess of eight hours a day. as amended. Even if petitioners did not institute a "no time card policy. Pontillas (respondent) as a daily wage company guard. overtime pay does not fall within the definition of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code. issued a Memorandum ordering. and computation of additional compensation (Article 90). violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. the transfer of responsibility of the Oro Verde Warehouse to the newly-organized VisMin 109 M a . this complaint filed for unfair labor practice. petitioner’s Vice President and VisMin Operations Center Manager. respondents were not able to present anything to prove that petitioners were obliged to permit respondents to render overtime work and give them the corresponding overtime pay. to 6:00 a. Elizagaque (Elizagaque). Respondent questioned the rate of salary increase given him by petitioner. 155178 Facts: On 24 October 1980. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .) were given night shift allowance ranging from P2. among others. overtime work (Article 87). In 1984.m.

He alleged that he was not properly notified of the transfer and that he did not receive any written order from Capt. In this case. Respondent continued to report at Oro Verde Warehouse.. his immediate superior. Respondent’s transfer was the effect of the integration of the functions of the Mandaue Brewery – Materials Management and the Physical Distribution group into a unified logistics organization. we found that the order of transfer was reasonable and lawful considering the integration of Oro Verde Warehouse with VisMin Logistics Operations. and other privileges. provided the transfer does not result in demotion in rank or diminution of the employee’s salary. the VisMin Logistics Operations. vs Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Arco Metal – NAFLU (2008) G. and other privileges. characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. Respondent was properly informed of the transfer but he refused to receive the notices on the pretext that he was wary because of his pending case against petitioner.In a letter dated 7 April 1994. or even a diminution of his salary. petitioner informed respondent that an administrative investigation. Respondent’s persistent refusal to obey petitioner’s lawful order amounts to wilful disobedience under Article 282 of the Labor Code. made known to the employee.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Logistics Operations effective 1 January 1994. et al. particularly for Insubordination or Willful Disobedience in Carrying Out Reasonable Instructions of his superior. Moreover. benefits. Issue: WON respondent’s dismissal from employment is legal. Arco Metal Products Co. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Willful disobedience requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful. benefits.R. and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.. Respondent failed to prove that petitioner was acting in bad faith in effecting the transfer. that is. Inc. the employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the requirements of its business. There was no demotion involved. and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable. In a letter dated 28 February 1994. An employer may terminate an employment for serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work. The records show that respondent was not singled out for the transfer. petitioner informed respondent of its decision to terminate him for violating company rules and regulations. lawful. Fortich. 170734 Facts: 110 M a . Held: Respondent was dismissed for a just cause.

Sometime in December 2003. Petitioner cannot shirk away from its responsibility by merely claiming that it was a mistake or an error. 1999. Respondent protested the prorated scheme. and leave encashment in full regardless of actual service rendered constitutes voluntary employer practice and. LlB – 2 111 M a . consequently. petitioner had adopted a policy of freely. there were only a total of seven employees who benefited from such a practice. The principle of non-diminution of benefits is founded on the Constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare and to afford labor full protection. Issue: WON the grant of 13th month pay. Thus in DavaoFruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions. diminished. discontinued or eliminated. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 . reduced. Thus. In Sevilla Trading Company v. petitioner paid the 13 th month pay. supported only by an affidavit of its manufacturing group head. 1993. discontinued or eliminated by the employer. which is less than a full twelve (12) months. Jurisprudence is replete with cases which recognize the right of employees to benefits which were voluntarily given by the employer and which ripened into company practice. voluntarily and consistently granting full benefits to its employees regardless of the length of service rendered. Thus. According to respondent. Jurisprudence has not laid down any rule specifying a minimum number of years within which a company practice must be exercised in order to constitute voluntary company practice. Held: Any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by employees cannot be reduced. we held that the act which was favorable to the employees though not conforming to law had thus ripened into a practice and could not be withdrawn. where an employer had freely and continuously included in the computation of the 13 th month pay those items that were expressly excluded by the law. and leave encashment of three union members in amounts proportional to the service they actually rendered in a year. 2002 and 2003. Semana. bonus. three (3) years. et al. or even as short as two (2) years. whether or not the prorated payment of the said benefits constitute diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of metal products. True. they filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). claiming that on several occasions petitioner did not prorate the payment of the same benefits to seven (7) employees who had not served for the full 12 months. it can be six (6) years. including its implementing rules and regulations shall be rendered in favor of labor. bonus. diminished. In the years 1992. whereas respondent is the labor union of petitioner’s rank and file employees. the prorated payment violates the rule against diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code. Said mandate in turn is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code. but it was an established practice nonetheless. we ruled that the employer’s act of including non-basic benefits in the computation of the 13 th month pay was a voluntary act and had ripened into a company practice which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn. 1994.

the deduction is considered illegal. Such a computation not only marks a change in the method of payment of wages. not on issues involving diminution of benefits. He later amended his complaint to implead his corespondent union and add as grounds unfair labor practice and reimbursement of illegal deductions on tollgate fees. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of service incentive leave pay. and payment of service incentive leave pay. as contended by Genesis Transport. with respect to Taroy’s claim for refund. claiming that he was singled out for termination because of his union activities. the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor for if. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . terminated from employment after an accident on April 20.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Genesis Transport Service et al. 182114 Facts: Respondent Juan Taroy was hired by petitioner Genesis Transport as driver on commission basis at 9% of the gross revenue per trip. why were not expenses for fuel and maintenance also charged to overhead expense. 2002 where he was deemed to have been driving recklessly. Issue: Whether the tollgate fee deductions which resulted to an underpayment given to Taroy is illegal? Held: The deduction is considered illegal. as amended.. tollgate fees form part of overhead expense. vs UMM Genesis Transport (2010) G. but certainly the deduction thereof diminishes the take home pay of the employees. It need not be underlined that without Taroy’s written consent or authorization. He.R. Besides. the labor tribunal and the appellate court correctly held that the withholding of those amounts reduced the amount from which Taroy’s 9% commission would be computed. after due notice and hearing. the invocation of the rule on “company practice” is generally used with respect to the grant of additional benefits to employees. other drivers who had met accidents not having been dismissed from employment. Upon appeal. The Labor Arbiter thus concluded that “it would appear that the tollgate fees are deducted from the gross revenues and not from the salaries of drivers and conductors. The amounts representing tollgate fees were deducted from gross revenues and not directly from Taroy’s commissions. resulting in a diminution of Taroy’s wages in violation of Article 113 vis-à-vis Article 100 of the Labor Code. 112 M a .

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 113 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 114 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .

In addition to the amount of P1. During the first week of June 1990. petitioner admits that the P1. alleging that with petitioner's rates and the scarcity of tuna catches.00 per tuna weighing thirty (30) to eighty (80) kilos per movement. in truth and in fact is the tuna intestines and liver which they can easily convert into cash.00 per 'bariles' per movement herein complainants get the intestines and liver of the tuna as part of their salary.00 to P20.00-per-tuna movement is the actual wage rate applied to private respondents as expressly agreed upon by both parties.00 per tuna per movement BUT the intestines and liver of the tuna delivered shall go to the herein complainants. private respondents charged petitioner with violation of the minimum wage law. It should be noted that tuna intestines and liver are easily disposed of in any public market." Quite clearly. What they are after. With respect to their monetary claims. they were informed that they had been replaced by a new set of workers. and for constructive dismissal. Private respondents resisted petitioner's proposed rate reduction. holiday pay. petitioner notified his workers of his proposal to reduce the rate-per-tuna movement due to the scarcity of tuna. On June 1990. That the minimum prevailing price of tuna intestine and liver in 1986 to 1990 range from P15. Act Nos. They worked seven (7) days a week. rest day pay.00). They were uniformly paid at a rate of P1.00/kilo. private respondents' average monthly earnings each did not exceed ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1. Issue: WON the means of payment of the wage is valid. 6640 and 6727) and nonpayment of overtime pay. The value of the tuna intestine and liver should be computed in arriving at the daily wage of herein complainants because the very essence of the agreement between complainants and respondent is: complainants shall be paid only P1. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . herein complainants extract at least three (3) kilos of intestines and liver. Petitioner further admits that private respondents were entitled to retrieve the tuna intestines and liver as part of their compensation. 13th month pay. private respondents filed a case against petitioner before the NLRC for underpayment of wages (non-compliance with Rep. The Labor Code expressly provides: 115 M a .000. and five (5)-day service incentive leave pay. That for every tuna delivered. When they reported for work the next day. Held: The means of payment of wage is invalid.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Congson vs NLRC (1995) 243 SCRA 260 Facts: Private respondents were hired on various dates 3 by petitioner as regular piece-rate workers.

The only instance when an employer is permitted to pay wages in forms other than legal tender. does not shield petitioner. Wages shall be paid only by means of legal tender. even when expressly requested by the employee. or any object other than legal tender. Article 102 of the Labor Code is clear. Payment of wages by check or money order shall be allowed when such manner of payment is customary on the date of effectivity of this Code. that is.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case "Article 102. — No employer shall pay the wages of an employee by means of. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . promissory notes vouchers. or is necessary because as specified in appropriate regulations to be issued by the Secretary of Labor or as stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement. by checks or money order. tokens. petitioner's practice of paying the private respondents the minimum wage by means of legal tender combined with tuna liver and intestines runs counter to the above cited provision of the Labor Code. coupons. The fact that said method of paying the minimum wage was not only agreed upon by both parties in the employment agreement but even expressly requested by private respondents. tickets." Undoubtedly. is when the circumstances prescribed in the second paragraph of Article 102 are present. Forms of Payment. chits. 116 M a .

1992. hazard pay. 1992.392 billion pesos.. On May 31. this arrangement lasted from 1981 up to 1990. Maco. Issue: WON the time spent in collecting wages in a place other than the place of employment is compensable notwithstanding that the same is done during official time. Subsequently.1992. petitioner North Davao completely ceased operations due to serious business reverses. back wages. Davao del Norte. for each of the five years prior to its closure. its total liabilities had exceeded its assets by 20. All told five months prior to its closure. Davao del Norte. it had been giving separation pay equivalent to thirty days’ pay for every year of service. From 1988 until its closure in 1992. transportation allowance. computed on their basic monthly pay. which usually took the workers about two and a half (2 1/2) hours of travel from the place of work and such travel time is not official. and who were the complainants in the cases before the respondent labor arbiter. it appears that. from the time of its operations.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case North Davao Mining vs NLRC (1996) 254 SCRA 721 Facts: Respondent Wilfredo Guillema is one among several employees of North Davao who were separated by reason of the company’s closure on May 31. some 58 kilometers from their workplace and about 2 ½hours’ travel time by public transportation.022. when an inspection was conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment at the premises of petitioner NDMC at Amacan. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .878. However. its remaining employees were separated and given the equivalent of 12. during the life of the petitioner corporation. it was found out that petitioners had violated labor standards law.31. petitioner NDMC maintained its policy of paying its workers at a bank in Tagum.5 days’ pay for every year of service. the employees had to collect their salaries at a bank in Tagum. Moreover. from the beginning of its operations in 1981 until its closure in 1992. It is undisputed that because of security reasons. North Davao suffered net losses averaging three billion pesos per year. When it ceased operations. etc. in addition to the commutation to cash of their unused vacation and sick leaves. 117 M a . Records also show that on February 12. amounting to P58. a complaint was filed with respondent labor arbiter by respondent Wilfredo Guillema and 271 other seperated employees for additional separation pay. Held: Hours spent by complainants in collecting salaries shall be considered compensable hours worked. Davao del Norte. one of which is the place of payment of wages.

flood. would justify the granting of backwages equivalent to 2 days in a month. Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that: Place of payment. or by reason of actual or impending emergencies caused by fire. Maco to Tagum which is 2½ hours by travel and the risks in commuting all the time in collecting complainants’ salaries.(a) As a general rule. (2) When the employer provides free transportation to the employees back and forth. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Rule VIII. Payment in a place other than the workplace shall be permissible only under the following circumstances: (1) When payment cannot be effected at or near the place of work by reason of the deterioration of peace and order conditions.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Section 4. the place of payment shall be at or near the place of undertaking. 118 M a . . epidemic or other calamity rendering payment thereat impossible. provided that the time spent by the employees in collecting their wages shall be considered as compensable hours worked. Considering further the distance between Amacan. and (3) Under any analogous circumstances.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case San Juan de Dios Hospital vs NLRC (1997) 282 SCRA 316 Facts: Petitioners.” Respondent hospital failed to give a favorable response. Issue: Whether Policy Instructions No. the rank-and-file employee-union officers and members of San Juan De Dios Hospital Employees Association sent a four (4)-page letter with attached support signatures requesting and pleading for the expeditious implementation and payment by respondent Juan De Dios Hospital of the 40 HOURS/5-DAY WORKWEEK with compensable weekly two (2) days off provided for by Republic Act 5901 as clarified for enforcement by the Secretary of Labor’s Policy Instructions No. Petitioners appealed before public respondent National Labor Relations Commission which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. 1988. Held: The policy instruction is not valid. 119 M a . 54 issued by then Labor Secretary (now Senator) Franklin M. thus. This issuance clarifies the enforcement policy of this Department on the working hours and compensation of personnel employed by hospital/clinics with a bed capacity of 100 or more and those located in cities and municipalities with a population of one million or more. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. Drilon is valid or not. 1992. petitioners filed a complaint regarding their claims for statutory benefits under the above-cited law and policy issuance. On February 26. 54 dated April 12.

” Accordingly. five days per week for health personnel. nurses. rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are likewise repealed. social workers.000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day. midwives. dietitians. only Article 83 of the Labor Code which appears to have substantially incorporated or reproduced the basic provisions of Republic Act No. decrees. What Article 83 merely provides are: (1) the regular office hour of eight hours a day. exclusive of time for meals. -. 54 on which the latter’s validity may be gauged. the Secretary of Labor exceeded his authority by including a two days off with pay in contravention of the clear mandate of the statute. and (2) where the exigencies of service require that health personnel work for six days or forty-eight hours then such health personnel shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty percent of their regular wage for work on the sixth day. laboratory technicians. except where the exigencies of the service require that such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours. 5901 may support Policy Instructions No. 120 M a . Article 83 of the Labor Code states: Normal Hours of Work. Needless to say. There is nothing in the law that supports then Secretary of Labor’s assertion that “personnel in subject hospitals and clinics are entitled to a full weekly wage for seven (7) days if they have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek in any given workweek”.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Reliance on Republic Act No. 1974. Article 302 of which explicitly provide: “All labor laws not adopted as part of this Code either directly or by reference are hereby repealed. psychologists. and the Court will not hesitate to strike down an administrative interpretation that deviates from the provision of the statute. attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel.The normal hours of work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day. All provisions of existing laws. Administrative interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory. in which case they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth day. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . for five (5) days a week. paramedical technicians.000. “health personnel” shall include: resident physicians. 5901 has long been repealed with the passage of the Labor Code on May 1. orders. For purposes of this Article. “Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million (1. nutritionists.” A cursory reading of Article 83 of the Labor Code betrays petitioners’ position that “hospital employees” are entitled to “a full weekly salary with paid two (2) days’ off if they have completed the 40-hour/5-day workweek”. pharmacists.

with a 30 minute paid “on call” lunch break.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Sime Darby Pilipinas Inc. Coffee break time will be ten minutes only anytime between: 9:30 A. –3:30 P. except those in the Warehouse and Quality Assurance Department working on shifts.M. On 14 August 1992 petitioner issued a memorandum to all factory-based employees advising all its monthly salaried employees in its Marikina Tire Plant. – 4:45 P. a change in work schedule effective 14 September 1992 thus – 7:45 A. – 11:45 P. 121 M a . (Sat).M.M.M. (Mon to Fri) 7:45 A. and 2:30 P.M. –10:30 A. all company factory workers in Marikina including members of private respondent union worked from 7:45 a.m.m.M. vs NLRC (1998) 289 SCRA 86 Facts: Prior to the present controversy..M. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . to 3:45 p.M.

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

Lunch break will be between: 12:00 NN –1:00 P.M. (Mon to Fri).
Excluded from the above schedule are the Warehouse and QA employees who are
on shifting. Their work and break time schedules will be maintained as it is now.
Since private respondent felt affected adversely by the change in the work schedule and
discontinuance of the 30-minute paid “on call” lunch break, it filed on behalf of its
members a complaint with the Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice, discrimination and
evasion of liability pursuant to the resolution of this Court the Labor Arbiter dismissed
the complaint on the ground that the change in the work schedule and the elimination
of the 30-minute paid lunch break of the factory workers constituted a valid exercise of
management prerogative and that the new work schedule, break time and one-hour
lunch break did not have the effect of diminishing the benefits granted to factory
workers as the working time did not exceed eight (8) hours.
Issue: WON the act of management in revising the work schedule of its employees and
discarding their paid lunch break constitutive of unfair labor practice.
Held: The revision of work schedule is a management prerogative and does not amount
to unfair labor practice in discarding the paid lunch break.
The right to fix the work schedules of the employees rests principally on their employer.
In the instant case petitioner, as the employer, cites as reason for the adjustment the
efficient conduct of its business operations and its improved production. It rationalizes
that while the old work schedule included a 30-minute paid lunch break, the employees
could be called upon to do jobs during that period as they were “on call.” Even if
denominated as lunch break, this period could very well be considered as working time
because the factory employees were required to work if necessary and were paid
accordingly for working.
With the new work schedule, the employees are now given a one-hour lunch break
without any interruption from their employer. For a full one-hour undisturbed lunch
break, the employees can freely and effectively use this hour not only for eating but
also for their rest and comfort which are conducive to more efficiency and better
performance in their work. Since the employees are no longer required to work during
this one-hour lunch break, there is no more need for them to be compensated for this
period. The Court agrees with the Labor Arbiter that the new work schedule fully
complies with the daily work period of eight (8) hours without violating the Labor Code.
Besides, the new schedule applies to all employees in the factory similarly situated
whether they are union members or not.
Philippine Airlines vs NLRC (1999) 302 SCRA 582
Facts:
Private respondent was employed as flight surgeon at petitioner company.

122 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

He was

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

assigned at the PAL Medical Clinic at Nichols and was on duty from 4:00 in the afternoon
until 12:00 midnight. On February 17, 1994, at around 7:00 in the evening, private
respondent left the clinic to have his dinner at his residence, which was about fiveminute drive away. A few minutes later, the clinic received an emergency call from the
PAL Cargo Services.
One of its employees, Mr. Manuel Acosta, had suffered a heart attack. The nurse on
duty, Mr. Merlino Eusebio, called private respondent at home to inform him of the
emergency. The patient arrived at the clinic at 7:50 in the evening and Mr. Eusebio
immediately rushed him to the hospital. When private respondent reached the clinic at
around 7:51 in the evening, Mr. Eusebio had already left with the patient. Mr. Acosta
died the following day. Upon learning about the incident, PAL Medical Director Dr.
Godofredo B. Banzon ordered the Chief Flight Surgeon to conduct an investigation. The
Chief Flight Surgeon required private respondent to explain why no disciplinary sanction
should be taken against him.
In his explanation, private respondent asserted that he was entitled to a thirty-minute
meal break; that he immediately left his residence upon being informed by Mr. Eusebio
about the emergency and he arrived at the clinic a few minutes later; that Mr. Eusebio
panicked and brought the patient to the hospital without waiting for him. Finding private
respondent’s explanation unacceptable, the management charged private respondent
with abandonment of post while on duty. He was given ten days to submit a written
answer to the administrative charge.
In his answer, private respondent reiterated the assertions in his previous explanation.
He further denied that he abandoned his post on February 17, 1994. He said that he
only left the clinic to have his dinner at home. In fact, he returned to the clinic at 7:51 in
the evening upon being informed of the emergency.
Issue: WON being a full-time employee is obliged to stay in the company premises for
not less than eight (8) hours.
Held: Employees are not prohibited from going out of the premises as long as they
return to their posts on time.
Articles 83 and 85 of the Labor Code read: Normal hours of work—The normal hours of
work of any employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day.
Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one million
(1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one hundred (100)
shall hold regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week,
exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the service require that
such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in which case they shall
be entitled to an additional compensation of at least thirty per cent (30%) of their
regular wage for work on the sixth day. For purposes of this Article, “health personnel”
shall include: resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians, pharmacists, social
workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives,

123 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel.
Art. 85. Meal periods.—Subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may
prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give his employees not less than
sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular meals.

Section 7, Rule I, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code further
states:
Sec. 7. Meal and Rest Periods.—Every employer shall give his employees, regardless
of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off for regular meals, except in the following
cases when a meal period of not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the
employer provided that such shorter meal period is credited as compensable hours
worked of the employee;
(a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve strenuous physical
exertion;
(b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen hours a day;
(c) In cases of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work to be performed
on machineries, equipment or installations to avoid serious loss which the employer
would otherwise suffer; and
(d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable goods.
Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be
considered as compensable working time.

Thus, the eight-hour work period does not include the meal break. Nowhere in the law
may it be inferred that employees must take their meals within the company premises.
Employees are not prohibited from going out of the premises as long as they return to
their posts on time. Private respondent’s act of going home to take his dinner does not
constitute abandonment.

124 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

Linton Commercial Co., vs Hellera (2007) G.R. 163147
Facts:
On 17 December 1997, Linton issued a memorandum addressed to its employees
informing them of the company's decision to suspend its operations from 18 December
1997 to 5 January 1998 due to the currency crisis that affected its business operations.
Linton submitted an establishment termination report to the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) regarding the temporary closure of the establishment covering the
said period. The company's operation was to resume on 6 January 1998. On 7 January
1997, Linton issued another memorandum informing them that effective 12 January
1998, it would implement a new compressed workweek of three (3) days on a rotation
basis. In other words, each worker would be working on a rotation basis for three
working days only instead for six days a week. On the same day, Linton submitted an
establishment termination report concerning the rotation of its workers. Linton
proceeded with the implementation of the new policy without waiting for its approval by
DOLE. Aggrieved, sixty-eight (68) workers (workers) filed a Complaint for illegal
reduction of workdays.
Issue: WON there was an illegal reduction of work when Linton implemented a
compressed workweek by reducing from six to three the number of working days with
the employees working on a rotation basis.
Held: The compressed workweek arrangement was unjustified and illegal.
The Bureau of Working Conditions of the DOLE, moreover, released a bulletin providing
for in determining when an employer can validly reduce the regular number of working
days. The said bulletin states that a reduction of the number of regular working days is
valid where the arrangement is resorted to by the employer to prevent serious losses
due to causes beyond his control, such as when there is a substantial slump in the
demand for his goods or services or when there is lack of raw materials. Although the
bulletin stands more as a set of directory guidelines than a binding set of implementing
rules, it has one main consideration, consistent with the ruling in Philippine Graphic Arts

125 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

Inc., in determining the validity of reduction of working hours — that the company was
suffering from losses.
Certainly, management has the prerogative to come up with measures to ensure
profitability or loss minimization. However, such privilege is not absolute. Management
prerogative must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor.
As previously stated, financial losses must be shown before a company can validly opt
to reduce the work hours of its employees. However, to date, no definite guidelines
have yet been set to determine whether the alleged losses are sufficient to justify the
reduction of work hours. If the standards set in determining the justifiability of financial
losses under Article 283 (i.e., retrenchment) or Article 286 (i.e., suspension of work) of
the Labor Code were to be considered, petitioners would end up failing to meet the
standards. On the one hand, Article 286 applies only when there is a bona fide
suspension of the employer's operation of a business or undertaking for a period not
exceeding six (6) months. Records show that Linton continued its business operations
during the effectivity of the compressed workweek, which spanned more than the
maximum period. On the other hand, for retrenchment to be justified, any claim of
actual or potential business losses must satisfy the following standards: (1) the losses
incurred are substantial and not de minimis; (2) the losses are actual or reasonably
imminent; (3) the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and is likely to be effective in
preventing the expected losses; and (4) the alleged losses, if already incurred, or the
expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, are proven by sufficient and
convincing evidence. Linton failed to comply with these standards.
Bisig Manggagawa sa Tryco vs NLRC (2008) G.R. 151309
Facts:
Tryco and the petitioners signed separate Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), providing
for a compressed workweek schedule to be implemented in the company effective May
20, 1996. The MOA was entered into pursuant to Department of Labor and Employment
Department Order (D.O.) No. 21, Series of 1990, Guidelines on the Implementation of
Compressed Workweek. As provided in the MOA, 8:00a.m. to 6:12p.m., from Monday to
Friday, shall be considered as the regular working hours, and no overtime pay shall be
due and payable to the employee for work rendered during those hours. The MOA
specifically stated that the employee waives the right to overtime pay for work rendered
after 5p.m. until 6:12p.m. from Monday to Friday considering that the compressed
workweek schedule is adopted in lieu of the regular workweek schedule which also
consists of 46 hours. However, should an employee be permitted or required to work
beyond 6:12p.m., such employee shall be entitled to overtime pay.
Tryco informed the Bureau of Working Conditions of the Department of Labor and
Employment of the implementation of a compressed workweek in the company. In
January 1997, BMT and Tryco negotiated for the renewal of their collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) but failed to arrive at a new agreement.

126 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

Held: The MOA is enforceable and binding against the petitioner. If an employee is permitted or required to work in excess of his normal weekly hours of work prior to the adoption of the compressed workweek scheme. 3. Notably. and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable. with full understanding of what he was doing. 127 M a . 4. the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. under D. Where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily. 21. to protect the interest of the employees in the implementation of a compressed workweek scheme: 1. there is no room for interpretation and its terms should be implemented as they are written. the MOA complied with the following conditions set by the DOLE. Considering that the MOA clearly states that the employee waives the payment of overtime pay in exchange of a five-day workweek. all such excess hours shall be considered overtime work and shall be compensated in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code or applicable CBA. 2. The effectivity and implementation of the new working time arrangement shall be by agreement of the parties. Appropriate waivers with respect to overtime premium pay for work performed in excess of eight (8) hours a day may be devised by the parties to the agreement.O. 5. No. The employees voluntarily agree to work more than eight (8) hours a day the total in a week of which shall not exceed their normal weekly hours of work prior to adoption of the compressed workweek arrangement. There will not be any diminution whatsoever in the weekly or monthly take-home pay and fringe benefits of the employees.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Issue: WON the MOA providing for compressed workweek is unenforceable as it is contrary to law. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 128 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .

" The former clause is still within the scope and purview of Article 82 which defines field personnel. Jr. (now Nestle Philippines. The criteria for granting incentive bonus are: (1) attaining or exceeding sales volume based on sales target. query must be made as to whether or not such employee's time and performance is constantly supervised by the employer. Inc. Inc.) filed with the National Labor Relations Commission a petition for declaratory relief seeking a ruling on its rights and obligations respecting claims of its monthly paid employees for holiday pay. the respondent arbitrator refused to take cognizance of the case reasoning that he had no more jurisdiction to continue as arbitrator because he had resigned from service effective May 1. even if they report to the office before 8:00 a. 1986. really spend the hours in between in actual field work. (5) minimal market returns and (6) 129 M a . as voluntary arbitrator. Moreover. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 ." The law requires that the actual hours of work in the field be reasonably ascertained. Under Article 82. (4) good merchandising work. (3) proper compliance with good market hygiene. the requirement that "actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty" must be read in conjunction with Rule IV. Arbitrator Vivar rendered a decision directing Filipro to pay its monthly paid employees holiday pay pursuant to Article 94 of the Code.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Union Filipro Employees vs Vivar (1992) 205 SCRA 203 Facts: Respondent Filipro. subject only to the exclusions and limitations specified in Article 82 and such other legal restrictions as are provided for in the Code. SECTION 1. in deciding whether or not an employee's actual working hours in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty. Held: Field personnel are not entitled to holiday pay. — This rule shall apply to all employees except: (e) Field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer The clause "whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer" did not amplify but merely interpreted and expounded the clause "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.. Coverage. Hence. Book III of the Implementing Rules which provides: "Rule IV Holidays with Pay. field personnel are not entitled to holiday pay.m. The company has no way of determining whether or not these sales personnel. Issue: WON sales personnel are excluded in the payment of holiday pay. (2) good collection performance. However.m. Both Filipro and the Union of Filipro Employees (UFE) agreed to submit the case for voluntary arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar. Said article defines field personnel as "non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. prior to field work and come back at 4:30 p.

It states that : "The reasons for excluding an outside salesman are fairly apparent. works individually. The criteria indicate that these sales personnel are given incentive bonuses precisely because of the difficulty in measuring their actual hours of field work. as his ambition dictates. and his employer has no way of knowing the number of hours he works per day." 130 M a . These employees are evaluated by the result of their work and not by the actual hours of field work which are hardly susceptible to determination. the Court had occasion to discuss the nature of the job of a salesman. Inc. Democratic Labor Organization. to a greater extent. v. Such a salesman. He works away from his employer's place of business.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case proper truck maintenance. There are no restrictions respecting the time he shall work and he can earn as much or as little. In San Miguel Brewery. In lieu of overtime he ordinarily receives commissions as extra compensation. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . is not subject to the personal supervision of his employer. within the range of his ability.

Property Warehouse Supervisor. Cost Accountant. General Services Supervisor. Junior Financial/Budget Analyst. are to be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff who are exempt from the coverage of Article 82 of the Labor Code. Instrumentation Supervisor. Head of Inventory Control Section. rest day and holiday pay. On June 1. Assistant Safety and Security Officer. as supervisory employees. Head Nurse. rest day and holiday pay allegedly in violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code. Jobs were ranked according to effort. the Technical Assistant to the Refinery Operations Manager. Shift Sugar Warehouse Supervisor.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case National Sugar Refinery Corp vs NLRC (1993) 220 SCRA 452 Facts: Private respondent union represents the former supervisors of the NASUREFCO Batangas Sugar Refinery. Community Development Officer. reestablish levels of responsibility. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .. the members of herein respondent union filed a complainant with the executive labor arbiter for non-payment of overtime. all positions were re-evaluated. Shift Boiler Supervisor. and all employees including the members of respondent union were granted salary adjustments and increases in benefits commensurate to their actual duties and functions. Shift Process Supervisor. Day Maintenance Supervisor and Motorpool Supervisor. rest and holiday pay since they fall within the classification of managerial employees which makes them a part of the exempted employees. Shift Operations Chemist. and recognize both wage and operational structures. specifically on June 20. 1990. Senior Financial/Budget Analyst. from rank-and-file to department heads which was designed to rationalized the duties and functions of all positions. training and working conditions and relative worth of the job. As a result. 1988. Sugar Accountant. Two years after the implementation of the JE Program. General Accountant. Issue: WON the members of respondent union are entitled to overtime. Head and Personnel Services. Employment and Training Supervisor. It must of necessity be ascertained first whether or not the union members. 131 M a . Held: The members of the union are not entitled to overtime. petitioner implemented a Job Evaluation (JE) Program affecting all employees. namely. responsibility. Shift Electrical Supervisor.

as defined employees. rest day and supervisory employees under Article 212 (m) should be made to apply only to the 132 M a . discharged. field personnel. lay-off.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case It is not disputed that the members of respondent union are supervisory employees. and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in Appropriate regulations. suspend. Exemption. but not to government employees. or (ii) execute under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training.” As used herein. (3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof. or their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight. Sec. (2). namely: (1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof: (2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein: (3) They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank. assign or discipline employees. (4) Who do not devote more 20 percent of their hours worked in a work-week to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1). transfer. domestic helpers. and to other officers or members of the managerial staff. if they meet all of the following conditions. which reads: “'Managerial employee' is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire. in the interest of the employer effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. experience. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . persons in the personal service of another. (c) Officers or members of a managerial staff if they perform the following duties and responsibilities: (1) The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of their employer. or knowledge. or (iii) execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks. recall. 'managerial employees' refer to those whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof. (2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. as defined under Article 212(m). — The provisions of this rule shall not apply to the following persons if they qualify for exemption under the condition set forth herein: (b) Managerial employees. they are not entitled to overtime. Book V of the Labor Code on Labor Relations. managerial employees. 2." Article 82 of the Labor Code states: “The provisions of this title shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not. and above. Supervisory employees are those who. members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support. hence." They are clearly officers or members of the managerial staff because they meet all the conditions prescribed by law and. All employees not falling within any of those above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees of this Book.

recommends revisions or modifications to said rules when deemed necessary. their duties and functions include. b) organizing and scheduling of work activities of the department. controlling communicating and in making decisions in attaining the company's set goals and objectives. In terms of working conditions and rest periods and entitlement to the questioned benefits. 4) conducts semi-annual performance evaluation of his subordinates and recommends necessary action for their development/advancement. and f) preparing annual departmental budget. and initiates and prepares reports for any observed abnormality within the refinery. More specifically. quality of service and working conditions. 133 M a . the union members are supervisory employees. 2) observes. directing. equipment performance. while the right of said employees to the questioned benefits should be considered in the light of the meaning of a managerial employee and of the officers or members of the managerial staff. e) selecting the appropriate man to handle the job in the department. which includes employee shifting scheduled and manning complement. staffing. 7) recommends disciplinary actions/promotions. organizing. collective bargaining. 6) coordinates and communicates with other inter and intra department supervisors when necessary. however. follows and implements company policies at all times and recommends disciplinary action on erring subordinates. 5) represents the superintendent or the department when appointed and authorized by the former. among others. 10) supervises the activities of all personnel under him and goes to it that instructions to subordinates are properly implemented. The union members will readily show that these supervisory employees are under the direct supervision of their respective department superintendents and that generally they assist the latter in planning. for purposes of forming and joining unions. they are officers or members of the managerial staff. 3) trains and guides subordinates on how to assume responsibilities and become more productive. hence they are not entitled thereto. as contemplated under Article 82 of the Code and Section 2. the following operations whereby the employee: 1) assists the department superintendent in the following: a) planning of systems and procedures relative to department activities. and 11) performs other related tasks as may be assigned by his immediate superior. d) attaining the company's set goals and objectives by giving his full support. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 8) recommends measures to improve work methods. 9) sees to it that safety rules and regulations and procedure and are implemented and followed by all NASUREFCO employees. and so forth. certification elections. In other words. Rule I Book III of the implementing rules. These supervisory employees are likewise responsible for the effective and efficient operation of their respective departments.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case provisions on Labor Relations. c) decision making by providing relevant information data and other inputs.

Quezon City. On 13 September 1991. non-payment of wages. The Court is constrained to agree with petitioner that the union members should be considered as officers and members of the managerial staff and are. Allegedly. Nestor A. Delantar informing him of the termination of his services effective on 30 April 1991. 134 M a . private respondent employed petitioner as construction/project engineer for the construction of the Monte de Piedad building in Cubao. Engr. as defined in Section 2. experience. it is apparent that the members of respondent union discharge duties and responsibilities which ineluctably qualify them as officers or members of the managerial staff. therefore. illegal deduction. unfair labor practice. exempt from the coverage of Article 82. under general supervision. petitioner would also receive a share in the profits after completion of the project and that petitioner's services in excess of eight (8) hours on regular days and services rendered on weekends and legal holidays shall be compensable overtime at the rate of P27. by virtue of an oral contract. Salazar vs NLRC (1996) 256 SCRA 273 Facts: On April 1990. (2) they customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. or knowledge. (5) they execute. under general supervision. and (6) they do not devote more than 20% of their hours worked in a work-week to activities which are not directly and clearly related to the performance of their work hereinbefore described.: (1) their primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of their employer. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . On 16 April 1991. petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent for illegal dismissal.85 per hour. (3) they regularly and directly assist the managerial employee whose primary duty consist of the management of a department of the establishment in which they are employed (4) they execute.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case From the foregoing. special assignments and tasks. work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training. Rule I Book III of the aforestated Rules to Implement the Labor Code. Under the facts obtaining in this case. viz. petitioner received a memorandum issued by private respondent's project manager.

(2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. Petitioner admitted that his job was to supervise the laborers in the construction project. 82 of the Labor Code specifically delineates who are entitled to the overtime premiums and service incentive leave pay provided under Art. under the law. and (4) who do not devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a work-week to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1). The petitioner was paid overtime benefits does not automatically and necessarily denote that petitioner is entitled to such benefits. Hence.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case overtime rendered. which hired them on various dates. — The provisions of this Rule shall not apply to the following persons if they qualify for exemption under the condition set forth herein: (c) Officers or members of a managerial staff if they perform the following duties and responsibilities: (1) The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of their employer. experience. 82 of the Labor Code. and (3) above. Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Held: The petitioner is not entitled to separation pay. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . or knowledge. 2(b). 87. 93. Rule 1. (2). commission. nonetheless he is still not entitled to payment of the aforestated benefits because he falls squarely under another exempt category — "officers or members of a managerial staff" as defined under sec. allowances. and sec. although petitioner cannot strictly be classified as a managerial employee under Art. 94 and 95 of the Labor Code and the exemptions thereto. Issue: WON petitioner is entitled to separation pay. However. 123938 Facts: The 99 persons named as petitioners in this proceeding were rank-and-file employees of respondent Empire Food Products. Petitioners filed against private respondents a complaint for payment of money claims and for violation 135 M a . (3) [i] Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof. 2(c) of the abovementioned implementing rules: SECTION 2. Manila. profit-sharing and separation pay with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch. or [ii] execute under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training. Labor Congress of the Philippines vs NLRC (1998) G. Art. this does not translate into a right on the part of petitioner to demand additional payment when. or [iii] execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks.R. Exemption. service incentive leave pay. It is well and good that petitioner was compensated for his overtime services. petitioner is clearly exempted there from. As previously determined petitioner falls under the exemptions and therefore has no legal claim to the said benefits.

as to the nature of petitioners' tasks were necessary or desirable in the usual business of private respondents. the length of time that petitioners worked for private respondents. holiday pay. including those who are engaged on task or contract basis. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . likewise did petitioners toil throughout the year with the fulfillment of their quota as supposed basis for compensation. Rule IV. On January 1991. Underpayment of Wages in violation of R. service incentive leave and 13th month pay. while petitioners' mode of compensation was on a "per piece basis. and interfering with the rights of employees to self-organization." the status and nature of their employment was that of regular employees. in Section 8(b). second. threats. such as Wages promulgated by the Regional Wage Board. 13th month pay and service incentive leave. 136 M a . petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents for Unfair Labor Practice by way of Illegal Lockout and/or Dismissal. holiday pay. although piece-rate workers. The Rules Implementing the Labor Code exclude certain employees from receiving benefits such as nighttime pay. 6640 and R. or those who are paid a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof. petitioners through LCP President Navarro submitted to private respondents a proposal for collective bargaining.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case of labor standards laws They also filed a petition for direct certification of petitioner Labor Congress of the Philippines as their bargaining representative. Actual. Held: The petitioners are so entitled to these benefits namely. Book III which we quote hereunder. premium pay. On November 1990. Further. piece workers are specifically mentioned as being entitled to holiday pay. Thus. purely commission basis. 6727. petitioners as piece-rate workers do not fall within this group. As mentioned earlier. No. were regular employees of private respondents. Union busting thru Harassments [sic].A. Mediator Arbiter approved the memorandum of agreement and certified LCP "as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent among the rank-and-file employees of Empire Food Products for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to wages. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment". "field personnel and other employees whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer.A. Moral and Exemplary Damages. who were engaged in the manufacture and selling of such food products. 1990. not only did petitioners labor under the control of private respondents as their employer. Three (3) factors lead us to conclude that petitioners." Plainly." Issue: WON the petitioners are entitled to labor standard benefits considering they are paid by piece rate worker. petitioners worked for private respondents throughout the year. In an Order dated October 24. Violation of the Memorandum of Agreement dated October 23. 1990. and third. First. No.

workers who are paid by results including those who are paid on piece-work. and those who are paid a fixed amount for performing specific work. of these regulations. pakiao. are not entitled to receive overtime pay. are different. Employers of those who are paid on purely commission. 851: d. 8. 137 M a . No. Book III of the Implementing Rules. in view of the modifications to P. 28. 8. such as payment on piece work. As to overtime pay. boundary or task basis. In addition. As such. without regard to the time spent in producing the same. the rules. Holiday pay of certain employees. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 851 19 by Memorandum Order No. however. The Revised Guidelines as well as the Rules and Regulations identify those workers who fall under the piece-rate category as those who are paid a standard amount for every piece or unit of work produced that is more or less regularly replicated.D.D. that in no case shall the holiday pay be less than the applicable statutory minimum wage rate. No. Rule I. According to Sec 2(e).University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case SEC. if their output rates are in accordance with the standards prescribed under Sec. Rule VII. however. the Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law. or task basis. Book III. EXEMPTED EMPLOYERS The following employers are still not covered by P. to wit: 2. takay. or where such rates have been fixed by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the aforesaid section. clearly exclude the employer of piece rate workers from those exempted from paying 13th month pay. his holiday pay shall not be less than his average daily earnings for the last seven (7) actual working days preceding the regular holiday: Provided. petitioners are beyond the ambit of exempted persons and are therefore entitled to overtime pay. irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof. — (b) Where a covered employee is paid by results or output. except where the workers are paid on piece-rate basis in which case the employer shall grant the required 13th month pay to such workers.

members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support. and workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate regulations. petitioner refused to give him work. petitioner prevented him from entering the premises. In contrast. during the entire course of their fishing voyage. petitioner refused to issue the certificate unless he submitted his resignation.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Mercidar Fishing Corp. 1990. For this reason. Art. 1988. 1990. He complained that he had been constructively dismissed by petitioner when the latter refused him assignments aboard its boats after he had reported to work on May 28.. Private respondent alleged that he had been sick and thus allowed to go on leave without pay for one month from April 28. fishermen employed by petitioner have no choice but to remain on board its vessel. However. 112574 Facts: Private respondent had been employed as a "bodegero" or ship's quartermaster on February 12. when he came back for the certificate on September 10. but not to government employees. persons in the personal service of another. 82 of the Labor Code provides: “The provisions of this title [Working Conditions and Rest Periods] shall apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not. vs NLRC (1998) G. Although they perform non-agricultural work away from petitioner's business offices.” "Field personnel" shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. he was told to come back another time as he could not be reinstated immediately. in the case at bar. domestic helpers. the 138 M a . private respondent asked for a certificate of employment from petitioner on September 6. Issue: WON the fishing crew members are considered field personnel who have no statutory right to service incentive leave pay. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .R. field personnel. Thereafter. 1990 but that when he reported to work at the end of such period with a health clearance. Held: Fishing crew are still entitled to service incentive leave. Since private respondent refused to submit such letter unless he was given separation pay.

Title I.R. Iligan City. 1083. Still.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case fact remains that throughout the duration of their work they are under the effective control and supervision of petitioner through the vessel's patron or master.. which falls on the first day of the first lunar month of Muharram. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . (b) Maulid-un-Nabî (Birthday of the Prophet Muhammad). which states: Official Muslim holidays. SMC contested the findings and DOLE conducted summary hearings on 19 November 1992. it was discovered that there was underpayment by SMC of regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees. Issue: WON the employees are entitled with regular Muslim holiday pay. which falls on the twelfth day of the third lunar month of Rabi-ul-Awwal. vs Court of Appeals (2002) G. otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. Book V. Filomena. Hence. 146775 Facts: The Department of Labor and Employment conducted a routine inspection in the premises of San Miguel Corporation in Sta. — The following are hereby recognized as legal Muslim holidays: (a) 'Amun Jadîd (New Year). SMC failed to submit proof that it was paying regular Muslim holiday pay to its employees. Director IV of DOLE Iligan District Office issued a compliance order directing SMC to consider Muslim holidays as regular holidays and to pay both its Muslim and non-Muslim employees holiday pay within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the order. which falls on the twenty-seventh day of the seventh lunar month of Rajab: 139 M a . In the course of the inspection. (c) Lailatul Isrâ Wal Mi'râj (Nocturnal Journey and Ascension of the Prophet Muhammad). Muslim holidays are provided under Articles 169 and 170. San Miguel Corp. Held: The employees are entitled to regular Muslim holiday pay. of Presidential Decree No. SMC appealed but it was dismissed. DOLE sent a copy of the inspection result to SMC and it was received by and explained to its personnel officer Elena dela Puerta. 28 May 1993 and 4 and 5 October 1993.

170 provides the provinces and cities where officially observed. Lanao del Norte. Lagrama filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Butuan City." ("You again urinated inside your work area. private respondent Lagrama was summoned by Tan and upbraided: "Nangihi na naman ka sulod sa imong drawinganan. From now on. Tan shouted "Gawas" ("Get out"). Art. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . there should be no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims as regards payment of benefits for Muslim holidays.") When Lagrama asked what Tan was saying. Muslim holidays may also be officially observed in other provinces and cities. Guikan karon. Tan vs Lagarama (2002) G. salary differential. Lanao del Sur. (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. He claimed that he was not the only one who entered the drawing area and that. no more drawing. Tan told him. and (e) 'Îd-ul-Adhâ (Hari Raya Haji). He alleged that he had been illegally dismissed and sought reinvestigation and payment of 13th month pay. The Court reminds the respondent-appellant that wages and other emoluments granted by law to the working man are determined on the basis of the criteria laid down by laws and certainly not on the basis of the worker's faith or religion. and damages. wala nay drawing. However. leaving him with no other choice but to leave the premises.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case (d) 'Îd-ul-Fitr (Hari Raya Puasa).R. The foregoing provisions should be read in conjunction with Article 94 of the Labor Code. North Cotabato.which falls on the tenth day of the twelfth lunar month of Dhû'l-Hijja. commemorating the end of the fasting season. "Ayaw daghang estorya. I don't want you to draw anymore. Pagadian. Iligan. 151228 Facts: On October 17.") Lagrama denied the charge against him. Maguindanao. 140 M a . which provides: Right to holiday pay. and Zamboanga and in such other Muslim provinces and cities as may hereafter be created. (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. 1998. Get out. Dili ko gusto nga mo-drawing ka pa. service incentive leave pay. it was a minor infraction to warrant his dismissal. — (1) Muslim holidays shall be officially observed in the Provinces of Basilan. Marawi." ("Don't say anything further. everytime he spoke. (2) Upon proclamation by the President of the Philippines. which falls on the first day of the tenth lunar month of Shawwal. even if the charge was true. However. Gawas.

Lambo vs NLRC (1999) 317 SCRA 420 Facts: Petitioners Avelino Lambo and Vicente Belocura were employed as tailors by private respondents J. Urinating in a work place other than the one designated for the purpose by the employer constitutes violation of reasonable regulations intended to promote a healthy environment under Art. while illegality in the manner of dismissal is dismissal without due process. 1985. NLRC should be computed from the time of Lagrama's dismissal up to the time of the finality of this decision. The parties do not dispute this finding. including Sundays and holidays. Hence.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Issue: WON the respondent was illegally dismissed and thus entitled to payment of benefits provided by law. In this case. 1985 and March 3. namely. Tailor Shop and/or Johnny Co on September 10. 279 of the Labor Code.C. to 7:00 p. without any deduction or qualification. Instead of ordering his reinstatement as provided in Art. the grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate. The illegality of the act of dismissal constitutes discharge without just cause. by his refusal to give Lagrama work to do and ordering Lagrama to get out of his sight as the latter tried to explain his side. but the same must be shown by evidence. daily. that is. This provision has two aspects: (1) the legality of the act of dismissal. respectively. the Labor Arbiter found that the relationship between the employer and employee has been so strained that the latter's reinstatement would no longer serve any purpose.m. This is of course in addition to the payment of backwages which. Here there is no evidence that Lagrama did urinate in a place other than a rest room in the premises of his work. They worked from 8:00 a. in accordance with the ruling in Bustamante v. petitioner made it plain that Lagrama was dismissed. according to the style of suits they made. dismissal under the grounds provided for under Article 282 of the Labor Code and (2) the legality in the manner of dismissal. and (2) those whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer. petitioners were paid on a piece-work basis. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . (1) those whose time and performance is supervised by the employer. The Bureau of Working Conditions 32 classifies workers paid by results into two groups. 282(1) of the Labor Code for purposes of terminating employment. 141 M a . The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code provide that no worker shall be dismissed except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process. As in the case of the other 100 employees of private respondents.m. Held: The respondent was illegally dismissed and entitled to benefits.

Workers on pakyao and takay basis belong to this group.e. Labor Arbiter found private respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and accordingly ordered them to pay petitioners’ claims. Payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relations. On appeal. service incentive leave pay. supervised employees. Issue: WON the petitioners are entitled to the minimum benefits provided by law. according to which the recovery of back wages should be limited to three years without qualifications or deductions. they are entitled to reinstatement with back wages. such as in sugar plantations where the work is performed in bulk or in volumes difficult to quantify. Piece-rate payment is generally practiced in garment factories where work is done in the company premises. (Here. There are two categories of employees paid by results: (1) those whose time and performance are supervised by the employer. capable of being expressed in terms of money whether fixed or ascertained on a time. the employer’s control is over the result of the work. there is an element of control and supervision over the manner as to how the work is to be performed. In this case. As tailors. 13th month pay. As petitioners were illegally dismissed. daily.00. petitioners worked in the company’s premises from 8:00 a. piece or commission basis. premium pay on holiday and rest day. holiday pay. while payment on pakyao and takay basis is commonly observed in the agricultural industry. 97 of the Labor Code as remuneration or earnings. the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC held petitioners guilty of abandonment of work and accordingly dismissed their claims except that for 13th month pay. to 7:00 p.) Both classes of workers are paid per unit accomplished. petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents for illegal dismissal and sought recovery of overtime pay.. After hearing. and attorney’s fees. task. including Sundays and holidays. they were each given a daily pay of at least P64. and (2) those whose time and performance are unsupervised. private respondents exercised control over the work of petitioners. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . separation pay. Nor does the fact that petitioners are not covered by the SSS affect the employer-employee relationship. The mere fact that they were paid on a piece-rate basis does not negate their status as regular employees of private respondents.). 4 Petitioners belong to the first category. A piece-rate worker belongs to this category especially if he performs his work in the company premises. On January 17. The Arbiter applied the rule in the Mercury Drug case. 1989. 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. (Here. Any award 142 M a .m. Held: The petitioners are entitled to the minimum benefits provided by law. The term "wage" is broadly defined in Art.m. i.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Regardless of the number of pieces they finished in a day.

and look with disfavor upon quitclaims and waivers that bargain these away. Latag thus asked Felix Fabros. — In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment. Avelina Latag. 30 provides: Retirement. Courts. R&E Transport vs Latag (2004) G. 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 143 M a . 1998. The Labor Arbiter correctly ordered private respondents to give separation pay. an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case in excess of three years is null and void as to the excess. for his retirement pay pursuant to Republic Act 7641 but he was ignored. however. Undisputably. 2000. which was granted. When La Mallorca ceased from business operations. 1999. he reported for work in September 1998 but was no longer allowed to continue working on account of his old age. the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Latag.R. who has served at least five (5) years in said establishment. as amended by Republic Act No. Subsequently. He was receiving an average daily salary of five hundred pesos (P500. his wife. On January 10. Pedro M. a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year. Latag got sick in January 1995 and was forced to apply for partial disability with the SSS. the administrative officer of [petitioners]. 155214 Facts: Pedro Latag was a regular employee of La Mallorca Taxi since March 1. Held: The respondent is entitled to retirement benefits despite of the waiver of quitclaims. The Quitclaim and Waiver signed by Respondent Latag. On December 21. Article 287 of the Labor Code. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions. Latag however died on April 30. but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age. Issue: WON Latag is entitled to retirement benefits considering she signed a waiver of quitclaim. 1961. Inc. Inc. Latag was credited with 14 years of service with R & E Transport. This is not say that all quitclaims are invalid per se.00) as a taxi driver. 7641. Latagfiled a case for payment of his retirement pay before the NLRC. may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service. are wary of schemes that frustrate workers' rights and benefits. substituted him. Latag transferred to R & E Transport. the CA committed no error when it ruled that the document was invalid and could not bar her from demanding the benefits legally due her husband. When he recovered.

1998. his retirement pay should be computed on the sole basis of his salary. this Department is of the view that the covered employees are entitled to at least two hundred percent (200%) of their basic wage even if said holiday is unworked. 1998.e. Held: The employees are entitled to the computation given in the bulletin clarification. Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU) protested. The bulletin reads: "On the correct payment of holiday compensation on April 9. 1993 which apart from being Good Friday is also Araw ng Kagitingan. Said bulletin was reproduced on January 23. which apart from being Good Friday is also Araw ng Kagitingan. 1993 as Good Friday and the second 100% is the payment of holiday pay for the same date as Araw ng Kagitingan. the basis for computing their benefits should be the average daily income. the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision directing petitioner to pay its covered employees "200% and not just 100% of their regular daily wages for the unworked April 9. whether unworked. 1993 wherein it clarified that employees are entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April 9. It is accepted that taxi drivers do not receive fixed wages. he is not entitled to the 13th month 32 and the service incentive pay. [Asian Transmission Corporation opted to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of their basic pay on April 9. 1998 which covers two regular holidays. the controversy was submitted for voluntary arbitration. Subject of interpretation in the case at bar is Article 94 of the Labor Code which reads: Right to holiday pay. The first 100% represents the payment of holiday pay on April 9. — (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during 144 M a . Araw ng Kagitingan and Maundy Thursday. Thus. when April 9. In accordance with Step 6 of the grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) existing between petitioner and BATLU. Since Pedro was paid according to the "boundary" system.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The rules implementing the New Retirement Law similarly provide the above-mentioned formula for computing the one-half month salary. i. Despite the explanatory bulletin.." Issue: WON the employees are entitled to the computation embodied in the bulletin clarification. Asian Transmission vs Court of Appeals (2004) 425 SCRA 478 Facts: The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued an Explanatory Bulletin dated March 11. 1998. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . both legal holidays. but retain only those sums in excess of the "boundary" or fee they pay to the owners or operators of their vehicles. two regular holidays falling on the same day. On July 31. 1993. 1998 was both Maundy Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan. hence. namely.

although the worker is forced to take a rest. Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. the computation of which is determined by a legal formula which is not changed by the fact that there are two holidays falling on one day. 8. the twenty-fifth and thirtieth of December and the day designated by law for holding a general election. 4. is also Holy Friday or Maundy Thursday. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . promote national identity. 1998 when it was Araw ng Kagitingan and at the same time was Maundy Thursday. enumerates ten regular holidays for every year should not be interpreted as authorizing a reduction to nine the number of paid regular holidays "just because April 9 (Araw ng Kagitingan) in certain years." Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to labor. the thirtieth of November. such that the regular holidays are now: 1. 5. 2. and that that the law. In other words. the twelfth of June. as amended. Maundy Thursday. he earns what he should earn. 10. the fourth of July. which was amended by Executive Order No. 6. Labor Day (May 1) is a day traditionally reserved to celebrate the contributions of the working class to the development of the nation. Bonifacio Day (November 30) and Rizal Day (December 30) were declared national holidays to afford Filipinos with a recurring opportunity to commemorate the heroism of the Filipino people. Araw ng Kagitingan (April 9). and (c) As used in this Article. New Year's Day Maundy Thursday Good Friday Araw ng Kagitingan Labor Day Independence Day National Heroes Day Bonifacio Day Christmas Day Rizal Day January 1 Movable Date Movable Date April 9 (Bataan and Corregidor Day) May 1 June 12 Last Sunday of August November 30 December 25 December 30 The Court agrees with the voluntary arbitrator. 203 issued on June 30.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case regular holidays. 203 allow the worker to celebrate his faith with his family. Independence Day (June 12). his holiday pay. while the religious holidays designated in Executive Order No. 145 M a . that is. 9. the ninth of April. 3. except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers. and deepen the spirit of patriotism. like on April 9. (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 Voluntary Arbitrator held that Article 94 of the Labor Code provides for holiday pay for every regular holiday. 7. "holiday" includes: New Year's Day. National Heroes Day (last Sunday of August). Good Friday. like 1993 and 1998. the first of May. 1987." 8 It is also intended to enable the worker to participate in the national celebrations held during the days identified as with great historical and cultural significance.

the same was ignored by management. afford a worker the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays. Baguio-Tuguegarao via Manila and Manila-Tabuk via Baguio. The provision is mandatory. holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law. although he had not slept for almost twentyfour (24) hours. since May 1995. the bus he was driving accidentally bumped the rear portion of Autobus No. respondent instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with 146 M a .R. as amended. management sent him a letter of termination. Isabela. Inc. on a twice a month basis.. regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. Respondent further alleged that he was not allowed to work until he fully paid the amount of P75.551. as driver-conductor with travel routes ManilaTuguegarao via Baguio. on 02 February 2000. Respondent averred that the accident happened because he was compelled by the management to go back to Roxas. On January 2000. representing thirty percent (30%) of the cost of repair of the damaged buses and that despite respondent's pleas for reconsideration. Autobus Transport System vs Bautista (2005) G.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case As reflected above. 124. 156364 Facts: Respondent Antonio Bautista has been employed by petitioner Auto Bus Transport Systems. which is a management prerogative.50. Respondent was paid on commission basis. while respondent was driving Autobus No. as he had just arrived in Manila from Roxas. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays. Art. seven percent (7%) of the total gross income per travel. as the latter vehicle suddenly stopped at a sharp curve without giving any warning. Nueva Vizcaya. Thus. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Isabela. Fe. 114 along Sta. Unlike a bonus. the fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive. After a month. 94 of the Labor Code.

purely commission basis. According to Article 82 of the Labor Code. Moreover. purely commission basis." Said phrase should be related with "field personnel. This definition is further elaborated in 147 M a . Rather. employees engaged on task or contract basis or paid on purely commission basis are not automatically exempted from the grant of service incentive leave.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Money Claims for nonpayment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay against Autobus. Book III. (a) Every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay. or those who are paid in a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of the time consumed in the performance thereof. The disposition of the issue revolves around the proper interpretation of Article 95 of the Labor Code vis-à-vis Section 1(D)." The phrase "other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer" must not be understood as a separate classification of employees to which service incentive leave shall not be granted. it serves as an amplification of the interpretation of the definition of field personnel under the Labor Code as those "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. they fall under the classification of field personnel. What must be ascertained in order to resolve the issue of propriety of the grant of service incentive leave to respondent is whether or not he is a field personnel. Hence. A careful examination of said provisions of law will result in the conclusion that the grant of service incentive leave has been delimited by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code to apply only to those employees not explicitly excluded by Section 1 of Rule V. "field personnel" shall refer to nonagricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty." applying the rule on ejusdem generis that general and unlimited terms are restrained and limited by the particular terms that they follow. Held: The respondent is entitled to service incentive leave. Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code which provides: RIGHT TO SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE. unless. Rule V: SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE also states that this rule shall apply to all employees except: (d)Field personnel and other employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer including those who are engaged on task or contract basis. According to the Implementing Rules. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 ." The same is true with respect to the phrase "those who are engaged on task or contract basis. Issue: WON respondent is entitled to service incentive leave. Service Incentive Leave shall not apply to employees classified as "field personnel. Rule V.

Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provides that "every employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive leave of five days with pay. is to unduly restrict such right. hence. At this point.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case the Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC). To limit the award to three years. in order to conclude whether an employee is a field employee. Accordingly. is less than 12 months.. or that provided in the employment contracts. it is necessary to stress that the definition of a "field personnel" is not merely concerned with the location where the employee regularly performs his duties but also with the fact that the employee's performance is unsupervised by the employer. an employee who has served for one year is entitled to it. If required to be at specific places at specific times. The clear policy of the Labor Code is to grant service incentive leave pay to workers in all establishments." It is also "commutable to its money equivalent if not used or exhausted at the end of the year. field personnel are those whose performance of their job/service is not supervised by the employer or his representative. whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working. employees including drivers cannot be said to be field personnel despite the fact that they are performing work away from the principal office of the employee. including authorized absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the establishment as a matter of practice or policy. field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. in which case said period shall be considered as one year. Thus. subject to a few exceptions. He may use it as leave days or he may collect its monetary value. Advisory Opinion to Philippine TechnicalClerical Commercial Employees Association 10 which states that: As a general rule. it is also necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. 168194 Facts: 148 M a . as the solicitor general recommends. San Miguel Corp." In other words." Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has served "within 12 months. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . As discussed above. respondent is entitled to the grant of service incentive leave.R. vs Del Rosario (2005) G. the workplace being away from the principal office and whose hours and days of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. an inquiry must be made as to whether or not the employee's time and performance are constantly supervised by the employer. they are paid specific amount for rendering specific service or performing specific work. In so doing. Section 2. Rule V. Respondent is not a field personnel but a regular employee who performs tasks usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade of petitioner's business.

None. means that she was a regular employee and not a temporary reliever or a probationary employee. 2001. none of these exceptional circumstance were proven in the present case. it modified the previous decision. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . probationers but also of some of its regular employees. the period of probationary employment may exceed six months when the parties so agree. and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors. such 149 M a . The best proof that petitioner should have presented to prove the probationary status of respondent is her employment contract. petitioner informed respondent that her probationary employment will be severed at the close of the business hours of March 12. the continuous employment of respondent as an account specialist for almost 11 months. If so. And while it is true that by way of exception. Redundancy. the burden of proving the circumstances that would justify the employee's dismissal rests with the employer. petitioner is invoking a redundancy which allegedly resulted in the termination not only of the trainees. such as when the same is established by company policy. it hired new recruits and re-employed two of her batch mates. On June 24. respondent was refused entry to petitioner's premises. from April 17. In termination cases. On the other hand. or when it is required by the nature of the work. Thus. Petitioner tried to justify the dismissal of respondent under the authorized cause of redundancy. 2001. 2000 to March 12. 2002. otherwise. a position is redundant where it is superfluous. Succinctly put. Held: Respondent was illegally dismissed and is thus entitled to monetary benefits. Issue: WON the respondent was an employee and was illegally terminated. 2001. Undoubtedly. exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. It thus argued in the alternative that even assuming that respondent qualified for regular employment. petitioner claimed that respondent was a probationary employee whose services were terminated as a result of the excess manpower that could no longer be accommodated by the company. On appeal to NLRC. for purposes of the Labor Code. her dismissal would be illegal. The Labor Arbiter declared respondent a regular employee because her employment exceeded six months and holding that she was illegally dismissed as there was no authorized cause to terminate her employment. On March 9. Her termination from employment must be for a just or authorized cause. 2001. having been presented. Respondent alleged that petitioner feigned an excess in manpower because after her dismissal. is she entitled to monetary benefits.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Respondent was employed by petitioner as key account specialist. respondent whose employment exceeded six months is undoubtedly a regular employee of petitioner. respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal and underpayment/non-payment of monetary benefits. her services still had to be terminated because there are no more regular positions in the company. On March 13.

What further militated against the alleged redundancy advanced by petitioner is their failure to refute respondent's assertion that after her dismissal. The criteria in implementing a redundancy are: (a) less preferred status.. and (c) seniority. employees who are uniformly paid by the month. Respondent is not entitled to holiday pay because the records reveal that she is a monthly paid regular employee. i.g. The Court finds that petitioner was not able to discharge the burden of proving that the dismissal of respondent was valid. e. Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. decreased volume of business. Considering that respondent was illegally dismissed. 2001. She is likewise entitled to other benefits. Rule IV. computed from the time her compensation was actually withheld from her on March 13. shall be presumed to be paid for all the days in the month whether worked or not. (b) efficiency. it hired new recruits and re-employed two of her batch mates.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case as overhiring of workers. irrespective of the number of working days therein. Under Section 2. or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 150 M a .e. temporary employee. she is entitled not only to reinstatement but also to payment of full back wages. service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay computed from such date also up to her actual reinstatement. up to her actual reinstatement.

Peñaranda filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against BPC and its general manager. before the NLRC. which also takes him out of the coverage of labor standards. In May 2001. Issue: WON Peñaranda is a regular.00 as Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer until he was illegally terminated on December 19. Petitioner Charlito Peñaranda was hired as an employee of Baganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler. he alleges that his services were terminated without the benefit of due process and valid grounds in accordance with law. he was not paid his overtime pay. However.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Penaranda vs Baganga Plywood Corp (2006) G. common employee entitled to monetary benefits under Art. Held: Petitioner is not entitled to overtime pay and other monetary benefits. 151 M a . Peñaranda alleges that he was employed by respondent Banganga on March 15. Furthermore. The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code define members of a managerial staff as those with the following duties and responsibilities: (1) (2) The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of the employer. The Court disagrees with the NLRC's finding that petitioner was a managerial employee. Hudson Chua. Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. petitioner was a member of the managerial staff. night shift differentials and finally claimed for payment of damages and attorney's fees having been forced to litigate the present complaint. Like managerial employees. 159577 Facts: Sometime in June 1999. 2000.R. the labor arbiter directed the parties to file their position papers and submit supporting documents. 82 of the Labor Code and is entitled to the payment of overtime pay and other monetary benefits. After the parties failed to settle amicably. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 1999 with a monthly salary of P5. premium pay for working during holidays/rest days.000. officers and member of the managerial staff are not entitled to the provisions of law on labor standards.

Noteworthy. His classification as supervisors is further evident from the manner his salary was paid. acEHSI To recommend personnel actions such as: promotion. even petitioner admitted that he was a supervisor. 10." The petitioner’s work involves: 1. This work necessarily required the use of discretion and independent judgment to ensure the proper functioning of the steam plant boiler. To evaluate performance of machinery and manpower. To supervise. 3. 7. and who do not devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1). petitioner is deemed a member of the managerial staff. Petitioner's evidence also showed that he was the supervisor of the steam plant. particularly items. He belonged to the 10% of respondent's 354 employees who were paid on a monthly basis. Petitioner supervised the engineering section of the steam plant boiler. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . check and monitor manpower workmanship as well as operation of boiler and accessories. 6. or knowledge. Implement Chemical Dosing. Perform other task as required by the superior from time to time. or (iii) execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks. experience. feedwater and softener. 5 and 7 illustrates that petitioner was a member of the managerial staff. To check water from the boiler. In his Position Paper. 5.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests (3) (4) Labor Standards Midterm Case (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof. the others were paid only on a daily basis. (2). To supply the required and continuous steam to all consuming units at minimum cost. As supervisor. and (3) above. 1. 8. To train new employees for effective and safety white working." The foregoing enumeration. regenerate softener if beyond hardness limit. 2. 9. 3. Recommend parts and suppliers purchases. His duties and responsibilities conform to the definition of a member of a managerial staff under the Implementing Rules. 152 M a . or (ii) execute under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training. he stated that he was the foreman responsible for the operation of the boiler. 2. 4. The term foreman implies that he was the representative of management over the workers and the operation of the department. or disciplinary action. To follow-up supply of waste and other materials for fuel. His work involved overseeing the operation of the machines and the performance of the workers in the engineering section.

through its various outlets nationwide. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . the petitioner imposes a “Credit Administration Charge. 149013 Facts: The House of Sara Lee is engaged in the direct selling of a variety of product lines for men and women. Under existing company policy. depending on whether they sell individually or through their own group. intimate apparels. based on the volume of sales generated by him or her. the petitioner has found the need to strictly monitor the 38. the amount of which depends on the volume and value of their sales. These dealers.R. the petitioner engages and contracts with dealers to sell the aforementioned merchandise. ready to wear clothes and other novelty items. On top of this margin. counted from the day the said dealers acquired the merchandise from the petitioner. the dealer is given the Service Fee. In turn. Due to the sheer volume of sales generated by all of its outlets.or 52-day “rolling due date” of each of its IBMs and IGSs through the employment of “Credit Administration Supervisors” (CAS) for each branch. which would either be 38 days for IGSs or 52 days for IBMs. a sales commission. on the value of the unremitted payment. including cosmetics. To discourage late remittances.” or simply. The dealers under this system earn income through a profit margin between the discounted purchase price they pay on credit to the petitioner and the fixed selling price their customers will have to pay. the dealers are paid “Services Fees. In the pursuit of its business. 153 M a .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case House of Sara Lee vs Rey (2006) G. would obtain at discounted rates the merchandise from the petitioner on credit or then sell the same products to their own customers at fixed prices also determined by the petitioner.” or sales commissions. perfumes. the dealers must remit to the petitioner the proceeds of their sales within a designated credit period. a penalty charge. known either as “Independent Business Managers” (IBMs) or “Independent Group Supervisors” (IGSs).

Ms. The respondent made the instruction just before the computer data for the computation of the Service Fee accruing to Ms. Issue: WON the respondent is entitled to 13th month pay. the 154 M a . BOM Villagracia then summoned the respondent and required her to explain the unauthorized credit extensions. Rey-Petilla was about to be generated. With respect to salary increases in particular. not entitled to thirteenthmonth pay. and to screen prospective IBMs. Acting on the report. However. Jeremiah Villagracia. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . To discharge these responsibilities. while respondent was still working in Butuan City. to supervise the credit and collection of payments and outstanding accounts due to the petitioner from its independent dealers and various customers.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case The primary duty of the CAS is to strictly monitor each of these deadlines. the Branch Operations Manager or BOM of the Cagayan de Oro City branch was a certain Mr. such that her salary increases can be made a component in the computation of backwages. held the position of Credit Administration Supervisor or CAS at the Cagayan de Oro City branch of the petitioner. as the petitioner alleges. Mere allegations by the respondent do not suffice in the absence of proof supporting the same. In March 1995. In January 1994. In November 1993. but there were several other IBMs whose credit terms had been similarly extended beyond the periods allowed by company policy. therefore. They are by nature volatile and dependent on numerous variables. Sometime in June 1995. What is evident is that salary increases are a mere expectancy. Cynthia Rey at the time of her dismissal from employment. Mr. Held: The award of 13th month pay must be deleted. the CAS is under the direct and immediate supervision of the Branch Operations Manager (BOM). Respondent is not a rank-and-file employee and is. respondent was transferred to the Cagayan de Oro City branch retaining the same position. Under this organizational setup. she allegedly instructed the Accounts Receivable Clerk of the Cagayan de Oro outlet to change the credit term of one of the IBMs of the petitioner who happens to be respondent’s sisterin-law. respondent was elevated to the position of CAS. At that time. from the 52-day limit to an “unauthorized” term of 60 days.” The respondent must show that these benefits are due to her as a matter of right. including the company’s fiscal situation. the NLRC and the CA are correct in refusing to award 14 th and 15th month pay as well as the “monthly salary increase of 10 percent per year for two years based on her latest salary rate. the respondent must likewise show that she has a vested right to the same. BOM Villagracia discreetly verified the records and discovered that it was not only the 52-day credit term of IBM Rey-Petilla that had been extended by the respondent. the CAS is provided with a computer equipped with control systems through which data is readily generated. respondent was temporarily assigned to the Butuan City branch. She was first employed by the petitioner as an Accounts Receivable Clerk at its Caloocan City branch. Mendoza then reported this allegedly unauthorized act of respondent to her Branch Operations Manager. Villagracia.

C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case employee’s future performance on the job. in its Position Paper. 157775 Facts: On April 6. sent a letter to petitioner demanding holiday pay for all employees.. stating that payment was presumed since the formula used in determining the daily rate of pay of the covered employees is Basic Monthly Salary divided by 30 days or Basic Monthly Salary multiplied by 12 divided by 155 M a . through its Regional Vice-President. Casilan. as provided for in the CBA. on the other hand. (petitioner) and Leyeco IV Employees Union-ALU (respondent) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) covering petitioner rank-and-file employees.R. On June 7. Leyte IV Electric Cooperative. In short. for a period of five (5) years effective January 1. Vicente P. or the employee’s continued stay in a position. Inc. vs LEYECO IV Employees Union – ALU (2007) G. there is no vested right to salary increases. Petitioner. respondent. Leyte IV Electric Cooperative Inc. absent any proof. 1998. 2000. insisted payment of the holiday pay in compliance with the CBA provisions. 1998.

the minimum allowable divisor is 287. Considering that petitioner used the 360-day divisor. In light of such admission. 156 M a . The 304-day divisor used by the employer was clearly above the minimum of 287 days. 43 Producers Bank of the Philippines v. In granting respondent's claim of non-payment of holiday pay. that is. which is the result of 365 days. It was also applied in Odango v. the 51 un-worked Sundays and the 51 unworked Saturdays. National Labor Relations Commission. where Court ruled that the use of a divisor that was less than 365 days cannot make the employer automatically liable for underpayment of holiday pay. indubitably. The monthly salary thus fixed actually covered payment for 314 days of the year. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . the employees are required to work only from Monday to Friday. the employees were required to work only from Monday to Friday and half of Saturday. In fixing the salary. which is clearly above the minimum. Thus. In this case. or typhoon or other natural calamity. Issue: WON Leyte IV Electric Cooperative is liable for underpayment of holiday pay. such as transportation strike. less 52 Sundays and less 26 Saturdays (or 52 half Saturdays). The Voluntary Arbitrator gravely abused its discretion in giving a strict or literal interpretation of the CBA provisions that the holiday pay be reflected in the payroll slips. as well as days when no work was done by reason of fortuitous cause. it simply deducted 51 Sundays from the 365 days normally comprising a year and used the difference. This ruling was applied in Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corporation v. Held: Leyte IV Electric Cooperative is not liable for underpayment of holiday pay. Any divisor below 287 days meant that the employees were deprived of their holiday pay for some or all of the ten legal holidays. the monthly salary was fixed by Wellington to provide for compensation for every working day of the year including the holidays specified by law — and excluding only Sundays. which is arrived at by deducting 51 un-worked Sundays and 51 un-worked Saturdays from 365 days. the days when no work is done. In said case. as basis for determining the monthly salary. riot.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case 360 days. the minimum allowable divisor is 263. National Labor Relations Commission. Trajano. the employees are already paid their regular and special days. the Voluntary Arbitrator should not have simply brushed aside petitioner's divisor formula. thus with said formula. a "double burden" was imposed upon petitioner because it was being made to pay twice for its employees' holiday pay when payment thereof had already been included in the computation of their monthly salaries. petitioner's submission of its 360 divisor in the computation of employees' salaries gains significance. 314. Thus. Thus. including regular and special holidays. Wellington used what it called the "314 factor". or cause not attributable to the employees. In this case. Such literal interpretation ignores the admission of respondent in its Position Paper that the employees were paid all the days of the month even if not worked. petitioner's employees are being given their holiday pay.

et al. vs Layoc.R. Jr. 149640 Facts: Respondents were among the "Supervisory Security Guards" of the Beer Division of San Miguel Corporation... They started working as guards with the petitioner San Miguel Corporation assigned to the Beer Division on different dates until such time that they were promoted as supervising security guards. the private respondents were required to punch their time cards for 157 M a . et al. From the commencement of their employment...University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case San Miguel Corp. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . (2007) G.

Issue: Whether the circumstances in the present case constitute an exception to the rule that supervisory employees are not entitled to overtime pay. Corollary. undertime not offset by overtime (Article 88). As a result of the Decentralization Program. Thus. on January 16. The requirement of rendering additional service differentiates overtime pay from benefits such as thirteenth month pay or yearly merit increase.m. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Held: The present case does not constitute an exception to the general rule. 1993. the private respondents were availing the benefits for overtime. hours worked (Article 84).00 to P2." respondents could not demand overtime pay from petitioners if respondents did not render overtime work. and computation of additional compensation (Article 90). without prior consultation with the private respondents. overtime work (Article 87). It is thus clear that. managerial employees such as respondents are not entitled to overtime pay for services rendered in excess of eight hours a day.m. Respondents failed to show that the circumstances of the present case constitute an exception to this general rule. Consequently. However.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case purposes of determining the time they would come in and out of the company's work place. The other provisions in the Title include normal hours of work (Article 83). These benefits do not require any additional service from their beneficiaries. generally. to 6:00 a. Even if petitioners did not institute a "no time card policy. However. respondents were not able to present anything to prove that petitioners were obliged to permit respondents to render overtime work and give them the corresponding overtime pay.500. meal periods (Article 85). in lieu of the overtime pay and the premium pay.) were given night shift allowance ranging from P2. 1993 a "no time card policy" whereby the Supervisory I and II composing of the supervising security guards of the Beer Division were no longer required to punch their time cards. in the early 1990's. the Beer Division of the San Miguel Corporation implemented on January 1.00 a month. overtime pay does not fall within the definition of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code. the time cards were ordered confiscated and the latter were no longer allowed to render overtime work. Aside from their allegations. emergency overtime work (Article 89). the San Miguel Corporation embarked on a Decentralization Program aimed at enabling the separate divisions of the San Miguel Corporation to pursue a more efficient and effective management of their respective operations. holiday and night premium duty through time card punching. night shift differential (Article 86). 158 M a . the personnel of the Beer Division of the petitioner San Miguel Corporation affected by the "No Time Card Policy" were given a 10% across-the-board increase on their basic pay while the supervisors who were assigned in the night shift (6:00 p.000. Article 82 of the Labor Code states that the provisions of the Labor Code on working conditions and rest periods shall not apply to managerial employees.

00 per month as monthly salary for five (5) months instead of US$410. 1997. he claimed that he was underpaid in the amount of US$110. On March 8. 1997. National Labor Relations Commission. In resolving the question.. Thereafter. 162195 Facts: Private respondent Reynaldo Chua was hired by the petitioner shipping company. 1997. vs Chua (2008) G.00 as stipulated in his employment contract. where the NLRC was questioned for awarding to an illegally dismissed overseas worker fixed overtime pay equivalent to the unexpired portion of the latter's contract. 1997. He further asserted that his salaries were also deducted US$20. Bahia Shipping Services.R.00 per month by the petitioner for alleged union dues. An alleged record or minutes of the said investigation was attached to the said dismissal notice. the private respondent reported for his working station one and one-half hours late. On March 24. after respondent's repatriation. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . the private respondent left Manila for Heathrow.00 per month for that same period of five (5) months. England to board the said sea vessel where he will be assigned to work. Inc. private respondent was dismissed from the service on the strength of an unsigned and undated notice of dismissal. Thus.). On October 18. 1996 for a period of nine (9) months from October 18. the private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims. the master of the vessel served to the private respondent an official warningtermination form pertaining to the said incident. 1997. 1997. On February 15.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Bahia Shipping Services Inc. he could not have rendered any overtime work. The private respondent alleged that he was paid only US$300. 1996. Issue: WON respondent is entitled to overtime pay which was incorporated in his award for the unexpired portion of the contract despite the fact that he did not render overtime work. the vessel's master. ship captain Thor Fleten conducted an inquisitorial hearing to investigate the said incident. National Labor Relations Commission. Petitioner contends that there is no factual or legal basis for the inclusion of said amount because. petitioner's contention is well-taken.. held that although an 159 M a . Held: The inclusion of his "guaranteed overtime" pay into his monthly salary as basis in the computation of his salaries for the entire unexpired period of his contract has no factual or legal basis and the same should have been disallowed. On February 17. the Court. citingCagampan v. v. 1996 to July 17. The Court had occasion to rule on a similar issue in Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services (Phils. on March 9. as a restaurant waiter on board a luxury cruise ship liner M/S Black Watch pursuant to a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) approved employment contract dated October 9. Inc. This time.

it purports to mean. the literal meaning of its stipulation shall prevail. otherwise the same cannot be allowed. being the law between the parties. its meaning should be determined without reference to extrinsic facts or aids. PNCC Skyway Traffic Management & Security Division Workers Organization vs PNCC Skyway Corp. It opined that the unilateral scheduling of the employees' vacation leave was done to avoid the monetization of their vacation leave in December 2004. and from that language alone.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case overseas employment contract may guarantee the right to overtime pay. this Court held that the CBA during its life time binds all the parties.R. where the language of a written contract is clear and unambiguous. In Faculty Association of Mapua Institute of Technology (FAMIT) v. the contract must be taken to mean that which. In fine. Section 1 (b) of the CBA categorically provides that the scheduling of vacation leaves ha ll be under the option of the employer. Pertinent provisions are as follows: ARTICLE VIII VACATION LEAVE AND SICK LEAVE Section 1. PNCC then created a schedule of leaves for their employees. [b]The company shall schedule the vacation leave of employees during the year taking into consideration the request of preference of the employees. on its face. the CBA must be strictly adhered to and respected if its ends have to be achieved. In the case at bar. The intention of the parties must be gathered from that language. entitlement to such benefit must first be established. Stated differently. Petitioner objected to the implementation of the said memorandum. Issue: WON the PNCC has the sole discretion to schedule the vacation leaves of its employees.. (2010) G. the contested provision of the CBA is clear and unequivocal. unless some good reason can be assigned to show that the words used should be understood in a different sense. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 171231 Facts: Petitioner PNCC Skyway Corporation Traffic Management and Security Division Workers' Organization (PSTMSDWO) is a labor union duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Thus. Respondent PNCC Skyway Corporation is a corporation duly organized and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. The rule is that where the language of a contract is plain and unambiguous. Court of Appeals. Held: PNCC has the sole discretion to schedule the vacation leaves of its employees. It insisted that the individual members of the union have the right to schedule their vacation leave. They entered into CBA. Article VIII. The provisions of the CBA must be respected since its 160 M a . if the terms of a CBA are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. Vacation Leave.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case terms and conditions constitute the law between the parties. The purpose of a vacation leave is to afford a laborer a chance to get a much-needed rest to replenish his worn-out energy and acquire a new vitality to enable him to efficiently perform his duties. The parties cannot be allowed to change the terms they agreed upon on the ground that the same are not favorable to them. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 161 M a . and not merely to give him additional salary and bounty. Accordingly. the vacation leave privilege was not intended to serve as additional salary. To give the employees the option not to consume it with the aim of converting it to cash at the end of the year would defeat the very purpose of vacation leave. but as a non-monetary benefit.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 162 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .

He continued in petitioner's employ until August 12. is 163 M a . Retirement. Issue: WON the CBA stipulation on compulsory retirement after twenty-five years of service is legal and enforceable. whichever comes first. On February 1990. The COMPANY shall formulate a retirement plan with the following main features: (e) The COMPANY agrees to grant the retirement benefits herein provided to regular employees who may be separated from the COMPANY for any of the following reasons: (5) Upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or upon completing twenty-five (25) years of service to the COMPANY. when he was retired at the age of fifty-two (52) after having rendered twenty five years' service. Section 1 (e) (5) of the May 2. 287 of the Labor Code as worded permits employers and employees to fix the applicable retirement age at below 60 years. He eventually joined the Pantranco Employees Association-PTGWO. The complaint was consolidated with two other cases of illegal dismissal having similar facts and issues. 1989. non-union members. Article XI. The basis of his retirement was the compulsory retirement provision of the collective bargaining agreement between the petitioner and the aforenamed union. Moreover. Held: The CBA stipulation is legal and enforceable. early retirement. 287. Art.. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . In almost all countries today. — Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the Collective Bargaining Agreement or other applicable employment contract. The bone of contention in this case is the provision on compulsory retirement after 25 years of service. and the employee shall be compulsory retired and paid the retirement benefits herein provided. filed by other employees.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Pantranco North Express vs NLRC (1996) 259 SCRA 161 Facts: Private respondent was hired by petitioner in 1964 as a bus conductor. 1989 Collective Bargaining Agreement 8 between petitioner company and the union states: Section 1. private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner with NLRC. In case of retirement. i." The Court agrees with petitioner and the Solicitor General. providing for early retirement does not constitute diminution of benefits. before age 60.e." The said Code provides: Art. the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining or other agreement.

an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more. Although passed many years after the compulsory retirement of herein private respondent. which went into effect on January 7. he not only agreed to the CBA but also agreed to conform to and abide by its provisions. As a matter of fact. Being a product of negotiation. it cannot be said that he was illegally dismissed when the CBA provision on compulsory retirement was applied to his case. when said employee. 164 M a . in presumably better physical and mental condition. In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment. Thus. When private respondent ratified the CBA with the union. up till then. The law presumes that employees know what they want and what is good for them absent any showing that fraud or intimidation was employed to secure their consent thereto. Thus we are now seeing many CBAs with such early retirement provisions. 1993. 287 of the Labor Code. whether lump-sum or otherwise — at an earlier age. Incidentally. . nevertheless. usually consisting of a substantial cash windfall. to make it read as follows: Retirement. who has served at least five (5) years in the said establishment may retire . the CBA between the petitioner and the union intended the provision on compulsory retirement to be beneficial to the employees-union members. can enjoy them better and longer. — Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age establish in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract. . we call attention to Republic Act No. And the same cannot be considered a diminution of employment benefits. one of the advantages of early retirement is that the corresponding retirement benefits. can early on be put to productive and profitable uses by way of income-generating investments. thereby affording a more significant measure of financial security and independence for the retiree who. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . including herein private respondent. 7641. known as "The Retirement Pay Law". had to contend with life's vicissitudes within the parameters of his fortnightly or weekly wages. but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case considered a reward for services rendered since it enables an employee to reap the fruits of his labor — particularly retirement benefits." The aforequoted provision makes clear the intention and spirit of the law to give employers and employees a free hand to determine and agree upon the terms and conditions of retirement. Providing in a CBA for compulsory retirement of employees after twenty-five (25) years of service is legal and enforceable so long as the parties agree to be governed by such CBA. the said statute sheds light on the present discussion when it amended Art.

Issue: WON Latag is entitled to retirement benefits considering she signed a waiver of quitclaim. 155214 Facts: Pedro Latag was a regular employee of La Mallorca Taxi since March 1. however.R. the administrative officer of [petitioners]. are wary of schemes that frustrate workers' rights and benefits. 1961. There is no dispute the fact that the late Pedro M. Courts. Inc. This is not say that all quitclaims are invalid per se. Rather. he reported for work in September 1998 but was no longer allowed to continue working on account of his old age. which was granted.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case R&E Transport vs Latag (2004) G. Held: The respondent is entitled to retirement benefits despite of the waiver of quitclaims. Latag transferred to R & E Transport. for his retirement pay pursuant to Republic Act 7641 but he was ignored. When he recovered. 165 M a . Latag is entitled to retirement benefits.00) as a taxi driver. and look with disfavor upon quitclaims and waivers that bargain these away. He was receiving an average daily salary of five hundred pesos (P500. the CA committed no error when it ruled that the document was invalid and could not bar her from demanding the benefits legally due her husband. Latag got sick in January 1995 and was forced to apply for partial disability with the SSS. When La Mallorca ceased from business operations. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Latag thus asked Felix Fabros. As to the Quitclaim and Waiver signed by Respondent Latag. the bone of contention is the number of years that he should be credited with in computing those benefits.

an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more. Inc. 1988. 148542 Facts: Reuters Limited. Thus. she was directed to return to Manila and resume her post by December 15. On October 1983. he is not entitled to the 13th month 32 and the service incentive pay. may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service. a company engaged in news dissemination with offices worldwide. 1988. Pedro M. 30 provides: Retirement.. Petitioner received her retirement benefits under the Plan in the amount of P79. his retirement pay should be computed on the sole basis of his salary. but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age. which amount was determined by the trustee bank (Bank of the Philippine Island) in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . not on her notional salary. contending that her retirement benefits must be computed on the basis of her actual salary abroad. Latag was credited with 14 years of service with R & E Transport.000. 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 rules implementing the New Retirement Law similarly provide the above-mentioned formula for computing the one-half month salary. Since Pedro was paid according to the "boundary" system. she opted not to contribute to the fund. The computation was based on her notional salary. respondent Reuters implemented a local Retirement Benefit Plan (Plan) for its Philippinehired employees. 1983. It is accepted that taxi drivers do not receive fixed wages. hence. 7641. the basis for computing their benefits should be the average daily income.04. but retain only those sums in excess of the "boundary" or fee they pay to the owners or operators of their vehicles. she questioned the amount she received as well as her entitlement to a disturbance grant.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Undisputably. 166 M a . Phils. The Plan is funded by the company. Article 287 of the Labor Code. — In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment. hired Marilyn Odchimar Gerlach as its local correspondent. In this case. who has served at least five (5) years in said establishment. However.228. We thus compute his retirement pay as follows: P500 x 15 days x 14 years of service equals P105.R. She worked in Reuters Philippines up to December 23. the CA found that Pedro was earning an average of five hundred pesos (P500) per day. Phils. a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year. as amended by Republic Act No.. On October 12. Gerlach vs Reuters Ltd. Petitioner was automatically covered by the Plan by reason of her age and length of service. (Reuters). Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions. but an employee-participant may volunteer to contribute a percentage of his basic monthly salary to the fund. (2005) G. However.

respondent apprised her that the company's contribution to the Plan is based on her notional Philippine salary. Article 287 of the Labor Code reads: Article 287. In case of retirement. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . It is very clear that from the very start of her first assignment overseas. 14. " Thus. The Court ruled that petitioner's retirement benefits must be based on her notional Philippine salary. respondent based petitioner's retirement benefits on its Plan and established policy. petitioner's theory that the computation of her retirement benefits should be based on her basic annual salary while stationed abroad is untenable. (b) a collective bargaining or (c) other agreements." The first paragraph of the above provisions deals with the retirement age of an employee established in (a) a collective bargaining agreement or (b) other applicable employment contract. Retirement benefits.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Issue: WON petitioner is allowed to claim for additional retirement benefits. Held: The petitioner is not entitled to the additional retirement benefits. The second paragraph deals with the retirement benefits to be received by a retiring employee which he may have earned under (a) an existing law. Nonetheless. There are three kinds of retirement schemes. 28 It is this third type of retirement scheme which covers respondent's Plan. — (a) An employee who is retired pursuant to a bona fide retirement plan or in accordance with the applicable individual or collective agreement or established employer policy shall be entitled to all the retirement benefits provided therein . 167 M a . provides: "Sec. in the instant case. Consequently. The third type is one that is voluntarily given by the employer. — Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract. expressly as in an announced company policy or impliedly as in a failure to contest the employee's claim for retirement benefits. Rule 1 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book VI of the Labor Code. which is in accord with the above provision. the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements. The first type is compulsory and contributory in character. The second type is one set up by agreement between the employer and the employees in collective bargaining agreements or other agreements between them. Section 14(a). Retirement.

. under the Plan. It follows that the amount of retirement benefits of a retiring employee assigned abroad is based on his notional salary. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . both actual and notional. 145561 Facts: The case stems from the collective bargaining agreement between Honda and the 168 M a . the company's contribution to the fund is 10% of the basic monthly salary of each participant.R. Inc. Respondent also informed petitioner of the amount of her notional Philippine salary whenever she was transferred to her next overseas assignment or when there were increases in her salary. Honda Phils.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case In fact. vs Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda (2005) G. Significantly.. respondent was able to prove that it has been its practice worldwide that the notional salary of an employee is its basis in computing its contribution to the retirement plan for a local employee detailed abroad.

C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Honda issued a memorandum of the new computation of the 13 th month and 14th month pay to be granted to all its employees whereby the 31 long strikes shall be considered unworked days for purpose of computing the said benefits.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case respondent union that it granted the computation of 14 th month pay as the same as 13th month pay. The court also rules that the withdrawal of the benefit of paying a full month salary for 13th month pay shall constitute a violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code. The respondent union opposed the pro-rated computation of bonuses. The pro-rated computation of Honda as a company policy has not ripened into a company practice and it was the first time they implemented such practice. The payment of the 13th month pay in full month payment by Honda has become an established practice. The striking employees were ordered to return to work and management to accept them back under the same terms prior to the strike staged. Honda continues the practice of granting financial assistance covered every December each year of not less than 100% of the basic salary. Honda shall pay the amount. 169 M a . The voluntary act of the employer cannot be unilaterally withdrawn without violating Article 100 of the Labor Code. with a commitment that in the event that the strike is declared legal. Issue: WON the pro-rated computation of the 13 th and 14th month pays and other bonuses in question is valid and lawful. The amount equivalent to ½ of the employees’ basic salary shall be deducted from these bonuses. This issue was submitted to voluntary arbitration where it ruled that the company’s implementation of the pro-rated computation is invalid. Held: The pro-rated computation is invalid. The length of time where it should be considered in practice is not being laid down by jurisprudence. The union filed a notice of strike on the ground of unfair labor practice for deadlock. In the latter part of 1998. the parties started to re-negotiate for the fourth and fifth years of the CBA. DOLE assumed jurisdiction over the case and certified it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.

But respondent stood pat on its decision to retire her. at which time she would be 57 years old. that those who have retired from the University. Membership in the Plan starts on the day a person is hired on a full-time basis by the University. the Labor Code permits employers and employees to fix the applicable retirement age at below 60 years. citing “company policy.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Jaculbe vs Siliman University (2007) G. A brief exchange of letters between petitioner and respondent followed. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . By its express language. Article 287 of the Labor Code provides: Retirement . In a letter in December 1992. A member who continues to serve the University cannot withdraw from the Plan. on membership. stated: SECTION 1 – MEMBERSHIP. even if rehired. SECTION 2 – EFFECTIVITY OF MEMBERSHIP. Held: Retirement plans allowing employers to retire employees who are less than the compulsory retirement age of 65 are not per se repugnant to the constitutional guaranty of security of tenure. are no longer eligible for membership in the Plan. Petitioner emphatically insisted that the compulsory retirement under the plan was tantamount to a dismissal and pleaded with respondent to be allowed to work until the age of 60 because this was the minimum age at which she could qualify for SSS pension.Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract. petitioner began working for respondent’s university medical center as a nurse. however.” Respondent required certain documents in connection with petitioner’s impending retirement.” Issue: WON the respondent’s retirement plan imposing automatic retirement after 35 years of service contravenes the security of tenure clause in the 1987 Constitution and the Labor Code. 1993. 1993. 156934 Facts: Sometime in 1958.” On November 15. All full-time Filipino employees of the University will automatically become members of the Plan. informed petitioner that she was approaching her 35 th year of service with the university and was due for automatic retirement on November 18. Rule III of the plan. The rules and regulations of the plan show that participation therein was not voluntary at all.R. petitioner filed a complaint in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for “termination of service with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order. through its Human Resources Development Office. 170 M a . respondent. provided. This was pursuant to respondent’s retirement plan for its employees which provided that its members could be automatically retired “upon reaching the age of 65 or after 35 years of uninterrupted service to the university.

C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee whereby the latter. a member. Stated conversely.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case SECTION 3 – TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP. Provided[. respondent was guilty of illegal dismissal. It was through no voluntary act of her own that petitioner became a member of the plan. employees are free to accept the employer’s offer to lower the retirement age if they feel they can get a better deal with the retirement plan presented by the employer. In fact. Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties. This was clearly just such an instance. on contributions. in the rule on contributions. based on his pay while on leave. To this shall be added a 5% deduction from the basic salaries of the faculty and staff. or retirement from the University. The truth was that petitioner had no choice but to participate in the plan. resignation or termination of employee’s contract by the University. stated: The Plan is contributory. A member on leave with the University approval shall continue paying. Furthermore. 171 M a . Rule IV. the repeated use of the word “shall” ineluctably pointed to the conclusion that employees had no choice but to contribute to the plan (even when they were on leave). after reaching a certain age agrees to sever his or her employment with the former. given that the only way she could refrain from doing so was to resign or lose her job. his leave without pay should pay his contributions to the Plan. The University shall set aside an amount equivalent to 3½% of the basic salaries of the faculty and staff. Termination of membership in the Plan shall be upon the death of the member. who has been on leave without pay should pay his contributions based on his salary plus the University’s contributions while on leave or the full amount within one month immediately after the date of his reinstatement. having terminated petitioner solely on the basis of a provision of a retirement plan which was not freely assented to by her. However. a situation which often causes an employee to act out of need instead of any genuine acquiescence to the employer. It is axiomatic that employer and employee do not stand on equal footing. Meanwhile. Thus. An employer is free to impose a retirement age less than 65 for as long as it has the employees’ consent.] further that if a member has no sufficient source of income while on leave may pay within six months after his reinstatement. the only way she could have ceased to be a member thereof was if she stopped working for respondent altogether.

Quiñones. Jr.R. In the meantime. as Collector and Noemi Amarilla. Lagahit. where Benedicto transferred and assigned all his rights. — A. On March 1986. as Studio Technician. On November 1990. pensions. the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and Benedicto executed a Compromise Agreement. petitioner employed the following persons at its Cebu station: Candido C. a P1.00 salary increase was given to all employees of the company.500. etc. including its properties. Corsini R. gratuities. in December 1986. and took over its management and operations from its owner. their retirement benefits under the 1993 Collective Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and the bargaining unit of its employees.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. the government and Benedicto entered into a temporary agreement under which the latter would retain its management and operation. In the meantime. Roberto Benedicto. funds and other assets.. Held: The retirement benefits of respondents are part of their gross income subject to taxes. — (b) Exclusions from gross income. However. 162775 Facts: On various dates. on staggered basis.) Retirement benefits received by officials and employees of private firms whether individuals or corporate. vs Amarilla (2006) G. shares and interests in petitioner station to the government. Otadoy. — The following items shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this Title: (7) Retirement benefits. That the retiring official or employee has 172 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . as Traffic Clerk. However. the government sequestered the station. when the four retirees demanded theirs. Anatolio G. in accordance with a reasonable private benefit plan maintained by the employer: Provided. current and retired. the four employees retired from the company and received. petitioner refused and instead informed them via a letter that their differentials would be used to offset the tax due on their retirement benefits in accordance with the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Section 28 (b) (7) (A) of the NIRC of 1986 23 provides: Gross Income. Issue: WON the retirement benefits of respondents are part of their gross income. effective July 1994.

provides: (b) Pensions. stock bonus or profit-sharing plan maintained by an employer for the benefit of some or all of his officials or employees. Article VIII of the 1993 CBA provides for two kinds of retirement plans . — Pensions. for the retirement benefits to be exempt from the withholding tax. retirements and separation pay. Thus: ARTICLE VIII RETIREMENT Section 1: Compulsory Retirement — Any employee who has reached the age of Fifty Five (55) years shall be retired from the COMPANY and shall be paid a retirement pay in accordance with the following schedule: LENGTH OF SERVICE 1 year-below 5 yrs. and wherein it is provided in said plan that at no time shall any part of the corpus or income of the fund be used for. 5 years-9 years 10 years-14 years 15 years-19 years 20 years or more RETIREMENT BENEFITS= 15 days for every year of 30 days for every year of 50 days for every year of 65 days for every year of 80 days for every year of service service service service service A supervisor who reached the age of Fifty (50) may at his/her option retire with the same retirement benefits provided above. further. 12-86. any purpose other than for the exclusive benefit of the said official and employees. or both. the term "reasonable private benefit plan" means a pension. (3) the retiring official or employee is not less than 50 years of age at the time of his retirement. if the following requirements are met: (i) The retirement plan must be approved by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. or be diverted to.compulsory and optional. gratuity. and (4) the benefit had been availed of only once. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . where contributions are made by such employer for officials or employees. except the following: (1) Retirement benefit received by official and employees of private firms under a reasonable private benefit plan maintained by the employer. (2) the retiring official or employee has been in the service of the same employer for at least 10 years. and (iii) The retiring official or employee shall not have previously availed of the privilege under the retirement benefit plan of the same or another employer. For purposes of this subsection. the taxpayer is burdened to prove the concurrence of the following elements: (1) a reasonable private benefit plan is maintained by the employer.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case been in the service of the same employer for at least ten (10) years and is not less than fifty years of age at the time of his retirement: Provided. for the purpose of distributing to such officials and employees the earnings and principal of the fund thus accumulated. That the benefits granted under this subparagraph shall be availed of by an official or employee only once. the implementing rules of the foregoing provisions. Thus. 173 M a . Revenue Regulation No. (ii) The retiring official or employees must have been in the service of the same employer for at least ten (10) years and is not less than fifty (50) years of age at the time of retirement. retirement and separation pay constitute compensation subject to withholding tax.

If the employer fails to withhold and remit the correct amount of tax as required to be withheld under the provision of this Chapter. there is no record that the 1993 CBA had been approved or was ever presented to the BIR. Section 80. Moreover. The supervisor may be separated upon payment by the COMPANY of separation pay pursuant to law. 20 years and more (P10. In which case. who has rendered at least five (5) years of service to the COMPANY may voluntarily retire and the COMPANY agrees to pay Long Service Pay to said covered employee in accordance with the following schedule: LENGTH OF SERVICE 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years 20 years or more RETIREMENT BENEFITS 15 days for every year of service 30 days for every year of service 50 days for every year of service 60 days for every year of service Section 3: Fraction of a Year — In computing the retirement under Section 1 and 2 of this Article. the COMPANY shall not terminate the employment of the subject supervisor unless there is a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is of such a nature or at such stage that it can not be cured within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment. Under Section 80 of the NIRC. — (A) Employer.00) worth. Respondents were qualified to retire optionally from their employment with petitioner. — The employer shall be liable for the withholding and remittance of the correct amount of tax required to be deducted and withheld under this Chapter. Section 5: Loyalty Recognition — The COMPANY shall recognize the services of the supervisor/director who have reached the following number of years upon retirement by granting him/her a plaque of appreciation and any lasting gift: 10 years but below 15 years (P3. was obliged to withhold the taxes on said benefits and remit the same to the BIR. whichever is higher. a fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one whole year.00) worth. the COMPANY may exercise the option of extending the employment of an employee.00) worth. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 15 years but below 20 year (P7. such tax shall be collected from the employer together with the penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect to such failure to withhold and remit.000. the retirement benefits of respondents are taxable. unless the supervisor falls within the purview of either Sections 1 or 2 hereof. as employer. Liability for Tax. regardless of age. 174 M a .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Section 2: Optional Retirement — Any covered employee. Section 4: Severance of Employment Due to Illness — When a supervisor suffers from disease and/or permanent disability and her/his continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to her/his health of the health of his co-employees.000.000. the retirement benefits indicated therein shall apply. petitioner. Hence.

846. Thereafter. Instead. 1977.919. he filed a complaint before the arbitration branch of the NLRC for retirement benefits. a position he held until his retirement on November 30. petitioner refused to accept the check issued by private respondent in the amount of P200.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Reyes vs NLRC (2007) G.97 average monthly commission. he received a letter regarding the computation of his separation pay. 13th month 175 M a . Insisting that his retirement benefits and 13th month pay must be based on the average monthly salary of P42.19.766.21. He was eventually appointed as unit manager of Sales Department-South Mindanao District.R.322.22 basic salary and P31. 1997. which consists of P10. 160233 Facts: Petitioner was employed as a salesman at private respondent's Grocery Division in Davao City on August 12. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .

in Philippine Duplicators that. tax refund. service incentive leave pay. leave commissions. wherein the Court held that commissions earned by salesmen form part of their basic salary. absences and tardiness. 7641. Held: Average monthly sales commission should not be included in the computation of his retirement benefits and 13th month pay. Further. or capacity for revenue production. The salesmen's commission are not overtime payments. National Labor Relations Commission. in Boie-Takeda. Article 287 of the Labor Code. This Court has held. which indubitably are factual in nature for they will require a re-examination and calibration of the evidence on record. they do not effect any sale of any article at all. Issue: WON the average monthly sales commission should be included in the computation of his retirement benefits and 13th month pay. Petitioner contends that the commissions form part of the basic salary. v. Contrarily. which are generally tied to the productivity. as amended by Republic Act No. otherwise known as The New Retirement Law. Medical representatives are not salesmen. comprising a pre-determined percentage of the selling price of the goods sold by each salesman. In fine. the salesmen's commissions. we rule in the negative. were properly included in the term basic salary for purposes of computing the 13th month pay. Inc. earned sick and vacation leaves. — Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract… In the absence of a retirement plan or 176 M a . 22 provides: Retirement. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . commissions paid by the Boie-Takeda Company to its medical representatives could not have been sales commissions in the same sense that Philippine Duplicators paid the salesmen their sales commissions. of a corporation and such bonuses closely resemble profit-sharing payments and have no clear direct or necessary relation to the amount of work actually done by each individual employee. nor profitsharing payments nor any other fringe benefit but a portion of the salary structure which represents an automatic increment to the monetary value initially assigned to each unit of work rendered by a salesman. citing the case of Philippine Duplicators. Private respondent counters that petitioner knew that the overriding commission is not included in the basic salary because it had not been considered as such for a long time in the computation of the 13th month pay. whether or not a commission forms part of the basic salary depends upon the circumstances or conditions for its payment.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case pay.. damages and attorney's fees. were excluded from the term basic salary because these were paid to the medical representatives and rank-and-file employees as productivity bonuses. As to the main issue whether petitioner's commissions be considered in the computation of his retirement benefits and 13th month pay. financial assistance. the so-called commissions paid to or received by medical representatives of Boie-Takeda Chemicals or by the rank and file employees of Philippine Fuji Xerox Co.

if no collections were made by the salesmen. they are properly excluded in computing retirement pay.22 as the commissions he received are in the form of profit-sharing payments specifically excluded by the foregoing rules. from the foregoing. applies to the present case. as correctly ruled by public respondent NLRC. sales commissions which are effectively an integral portion of the basic salary structure of an employee. Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions. may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one half (1/2) month salary for every year of service. any commission which they receive is certainly not the basic salary which measures the standard or amount of work of complainant as Unit Manager. the term one half (1/2) 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. which pronounced that commissions are additional pay that does not form part of the basic salary. In fine. the disputed commissions were not regularly received by him. petitioner Rogelio J. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 177 M a . but merely supervised the salesmen under his control. an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more. overtime pay or profit-sharing statements. Thus. who has served at least five (5) years in the said establishment.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment.919. Reyes was receiving a monthly sum of P10. Only when the salesmen were able to collect from the sale transactions can petitioner receive the commissions. the commissions which petitioner received were not part of his salary structure but were profit-sharing payments and had no clear. Petitioner filed for optional retirement upon reaching the age of 60. Certainly. then petitioner would receive no commissions at all. Conversely. the doctrine in Boie-Takeda Chemicals and Philippine Fuji Xerox Corporation. Aside from the fact that as unit manager petitioner did not enter into actual sale transactions. Therefore. At bar. shall be included in determining the retirement pay. direct or necessary relation to the amount of work he actually performed. Accordingly. The collection made by the salesmen from the sale transactions was the profit of private respondent from which petitioner had a share in the form of a commission. they do not effect any sale of article at all. Case law has it that when these earnings and remuneration are closely akin to fringe benefits. but not beyond sixty five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age. a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year. the "overriding commissions" paid to him by Universal Robina Corp. However.919.22 as salary corresponding to his position as Unit Manager. Unit Managers are not salesmen. the basis in computing his retirement benefits is his latest salary rate of P10. could not have been 'sales commissions' in the same sense that Philippine Duplicators paid its salesmen sales commissions. However. the additional payments made to petitioner were not in fact sales commissions but rather partook of the nature of profit-sharing business.

174. vacation. (respondent) for collection of various monetary claims due its members. may not be considered as part of a teacher's regular or basic salary. Issue: WON the pay of the faculty members for teaching overloads should be included as basis in the computation of their 13th month pay? Held: Teaching overload may not be considered part of basic salary. Under the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 851. overtime pay. The Labor Arbiter (LA) handling the consolidated cases. Inc. 156225 Facts: The Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association (petitioner) filed a complaint against Colegio de San Juan de Letran. b) profit sharing payments.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association vs NLRC (1997) G. As provided for by Art 87 of the Labor Code. or maternity leaves. In the same manner that payment for overtime work and work performed during special holidays is considered as additional compensation apart and distinct from an employee's regular wage or basic salary. pay for regular holidays and night differentials. As such they are deemed not part of the basic salary and shall not be considered in the computation of the 13 th-month pay. the following compensations are deemed not part of the basic salary: a) cost-of-living allowances granted pursuant to PD 525 and Letter of Instruction No. Under a later set of Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 851 issued by the then Labor Secretary Blas Ople. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . for reason of which such is categorically excluded from the definition of basic salary under the Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 851. it is clear that overtime pay is an additional compensation other than and added to the regular wage or basic salary. 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 Dec 16. because it is being paid for additional work performed in excess of the regular teaching load. earnings and other remunerations are excluded as part of the basic salary and in the computation of the 13 th-month pay. 1975.R. owing to its very nature and definition. The all-embracing phrase "earnings and other remunerations" which are deemed not part of the basic salary includes within its meaning payments for sick. denied and dismissed the respective complaints. premium for works performed on rest days and special holidays. 178 M a . an overload pay. Calamba.

the provision for the payment of the Christmas bonus. The 13 th month pay. prior to the payment of the 13 th month pay. for which reason it was denominated as the mid-year bonus. The Christmas bonus. In response thereto. is distinguished from the 13 thmonth pay. 142399 Facts: In 1987. 1988. apart from the 13th month pay. Issue: Whether the 13th month pay or mid-year bonus can be equated to the Christmas bonus. petitioner PAL and respondent and PALEA entered into a CBA covering the period of 1986-1989. shall be paid in December. PAL released a guideline stating that the only employees eligible for payment of 13 th month pay are those ground employees in the general payroll who are regular as of April 30. must be paid their 13 th month pay. was incorporated into the 1986-1989 CBA between respondent PALEA and petitioner PAL without any condition. payable in December of every year. Airlines Employees Association (2008) G. equivalent to one month current basic pay as of November 30.R. 179 M a . 1988 per the Implementing Rules of PD 851. shall be paid in advance in May consistent with the existing practice while the Christmas bonus. due yearly in May. In 1988.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Philippine Airlines Inc. Such being the case. PAL informed PALEA that rank-and-file employees who were regularized after 30th of April 1988 were not entitled to the 13 th month pay as they were already given their Christmas bonuses on December 9. Part of said agreement required PAL to pay its rank-and-file employees 13th month pay and Christmas bonus. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . In the case under consideration. Others not falling in said category shall receive their 13th month pay on or before December 24. vs Phil. the only logical inference that could be derived therefrom is that petitioner PAL intended to give the members of the bargaining unit. regular or non-regular. Held: The 13th month pay or mid-year bonus can be equated to the Christmas bonus. equivalent to one month current basic pay. 1988. a Christmas bonus over and above its legally mandated obligation to grant the 13th month pay. represented by respondent PALEA. Respondent PALEA assailed the implementation of the said guideline on the ground that all employees of PAL.

and 2) the Christmas bonus. one of the issues passed upon by the Court was whether or not an employer who was already paying Christmas bonus pursuant to a CBA. bonus. whereas respondent is the labor union of petitioner’s rank and file employees. the Court ordered the employer to pay the employees both. Arco Metal Products Co.. claiming that on several occasions petitioner did not prorate the payment of the same benefits to seven (7) employees who had not served for the full 12 months. The Labor Arbiter.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case In United CMC Textile Workers Union v. the prorated payment violates the rule against diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code. petitioner PAL must pay its regular and non-regular employees who are members of the bargaining unit represented by respondent PALEA their 13 th month pay or mid-year bonus separately from and in addition to their Christmas bonus. 851 which provides that “ A bonus under the CBA is an obligation created by the contract between the management and workers while the 13 th month pay is mandated by the law”. their Christmas bonus is the same as or equivalent to the 13 th month pay. Thus. petitioner paid the 13 th month pay. As it had willfully and intentionally agreed to under the terms of the CBA. 851. Sometime in December 2003. Inc. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Issue: WON the grant of 13th month pay. and leave encashment of three union members in amounts proportional to the service they actually rendered in a year. they filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). et al. Held: Any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by employees cannot be reduced. was still bound to pay the 13 th month pay pursuant to Presidential Decree No. Respondent protested the prorated scheme.. bonus. 180 M a . According to respondent. Petitioner PAL may not be allowed to brush off said distinction. is explicitly covered or provided for as the mid-year bonus in the CBA. 170734 Facts: Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of metal products. It must be stressed that in the 1986-1989 CBA. petitioner PAL agreed to pay its employees 1) the 13th month pay or the mid-year bonus. whether or not the prorated payment of the said benefits constitute diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code. The 13th month pay. and unilaterally and arbitrarily declare that for non-regular employees. and leave encashment in full regardless of actual service rendered constitutes voluntary employer practice and. which is less than a full twelve (12) months.R.Finding that the intention of the parties to the CBA was that the Christmas bonus was meant to be on top of the 13th month pay. vs Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Arco Metal – NAFLU (2008) G. consequently. guaranteed by Presidential Decree No. while the Christmas bonus is evidently and distinctly a separate benefit.

R. In the years 1992. Universal Sugar Milling Corp. 1993. were allegedly forced to retire by 181 M a . where an employer had freely and continuously included in the computation of the 13 th month pay those items that were expressly excluded by the law. The principle of non-diminution of benefits is founded on the Constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare and to afford labor full protection. diminished. Semana. Republic Act No. 2002 and 2003. 1999. amending Article 287 of the Labor Code. we ruled that the employer’s act of including non-basic benefits in the computation of the 13 th month pay was a voluntary act and had ripened into a company practice which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn. Agripino and Alejandro having reached the age of 60. reduced. petitioner had adopted a policy of freely. Thus in DavaoFruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions. In Sevilla Trading Company v. Jurisprudence is replete with cases which recognize the right of employees to benefits which were voluntarily given by the employer and which ripened into company practice. supported only by an affidavit of its manufacturing group head. True. but it was an established practice nonetheless. three (3) years.” All employees corporate-wide who attain 60 years of age on or before April 30. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . we held that the act which was favorable to the employees though not conforming to law had thus ripened into a practice and could not be withdrawn. vs Caballeda (2009) G. 1991. 1992. 1991 shall be considered retired on May 31. discontinued or eliminated by the employer. Jurisprudence has not laid down any rule specifying a minimum number of years within which a company practice must be exercised in order to constitute voluntary company practice. 1993. on December 9. it can be six (6) years. Said mandate in turn is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code. there were only a total of seven employees who benefited from such a practice. Thus. including its implementing rules and regulations shall be rendered in favor of labor. 1997. or even as short as two (2) years. 1997 while Alejandro Cadalin worked for URSUMCO as crane operation from 1976 up to June 15. President of URSUMCO issued a memorandum establishing the company policy on “Compulsory Retirement. John Gokongwei. discontinued or eliminated. voluntarily and consistently granting full benefits to its employees regardless of the length of service rendered.. Jr. Petitioner cannot shirk away from its responsibility by merely claiming that it was a mistake or an error. 156644 Facts: Agripino Caballeda worked as welder for URSUMCO from March 1989 until June 23. 1994. Subsequently. et al.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case diminished. 7641 was enacted into law and it took effect on January 7.

and that its benefits can be reckoned not only from the date of the law's enactment but retroactively to the time said employment contracts have started. 287 of the Labor Code as amended. was in effect. In the absence of any provision on 182 M a . Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties. it may be stressed that the CBA does not per se specifically provide for the compulsory retirement age nor does it provide for an optional retirement plan. vs. The petitioners failed to prove that the respondents did not comply with the requirements for eligibility under the law for such retirement benefits. the legally mandated age for compulsory retirement is 65 years. Pursuant thereto.A. This doctrine has been repeatedly upheld and clarified in several cases. this Court imposed two (2) essential requisites in order that R. Issues: RA 7641 can be given retroactive effect. Agripino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal because his compulsory retirement was in violation of the provisions of RA 7641 and. Later on. The first takes place at age 65. The law has been enacted as a labor protection measure and as a curative statute that — absent a retirement plan devised by. Held: The issue of retroactivity has long been settled in the case of Enriquez Security Services. In this case. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . and (2) the claimant had complied with the requirements for eligibility for such retirement benefits under the statute. However. a form of illegal dismissal. The age of retirement is primarily determined by the existing agreement between the employer and the employees.A. 7641 may be given retroactive effect: (1) the claimant for retirement benefits was still in the employ of the employer at the time the statute took effect. Cabotaje. thus. to the financial well-being of workers during their twilight years soon following their life of labor. They both accepted their retirement benefits. while the set minimum age for optional retirement is 60 years. we must apply Art.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case URSUMCO. the aforementioned requisites were adequately satisfied. in part at least. RA 7641 was already in full force and effect. or a voluntary grant from. an employer — can respond. 287 of the Labor Code which provides for two types of retirement: (a) compulsory and (b) optional. 7641 in this case. RA 7641 is undoubtedly a social legislation. Under Art. There should be little doubt about the fact that the law can apply to labor contracts still existing at the time the statute has taken effect. Thus. a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee whereby the latter. while the second is primarily determined by the collective bargaining agreement or other employment contract or employer's retirement plan. In sum. warranting the retroactive application of R. an agreement with. whether or not Agripino Caballeda and Alejandro Cadalin voluntarily retired from the service. agrees to sever his or her employment with the former. the retirement age shall be fixed by law. When respondents were compulsorily retired from the service. in the absence of such agreement. It merely provides that the retirement benefits accorded to an employee shall be in accordance with law. after reaching a certain age. Inc.

we held: There is no nexus between intelligence. this is a manifestation that respondents had no intention of relinquishing their employment. The Court understands that such a risk of not receiving anything whatsoever. public policy. morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. other employment contract. On the other hand. or employer's retirement plan. can he receive anything at all. or refusing to sign and walk out without receiving anything. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 . we cannot simply assume that respondents were not subjected to the very same pressure. constitutes enough pressure upon anyone who is asked to sign a release and quitclaim in exchange of some amount of money which may be way below what he may be entitled to based on company practice and policy or by law. coupled with the probability of not immediately getting any gainful employment or means of livelihood in the meantime. being very well aware that it is going to take quite a while before he can recover whatever he is entitled to. Inc. The employee is confronted with the same dilemma of whether signing a release and quitclaim and accept what the company offers them. wholly incompatible to petitioners' assertion that respondents voluntarily retired. only Alejandro was able to claim a partial amount of his retirement benefit. all the way to this Court. an employee may optionally retire upon reaching the age of 60 years or more. Absent any convincing proof of voluntariness in the submission of the documentary requirements and the execution of the quitclaim. They are frowned upon as contrary to public policy. Thus. but not beyond 65 years. because it is only after a protracted legal battle starting from the labor arbiter level. public order.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case optional retirement in a collective bargaining agreement. petitioners failed to establish all the foregoing requisites. In this case. Respondents vigorously pursued this case all the way up to the Supreme Court. To be precise. and (4) the contract is not contrary to law. the Court has accepted the validity of quitclaims executed by employees if the employer is able to prove the following requisites: (1) the employee executes a deed of quitclaim voluntarily. NLRC and CA that petitioners are still liable to pay Alejandro the differential on his retirement benefits. or even the position which the employee held in the company when it concerns the pressure which the employer may exert upon the free will of the employee who is asked to sign a release and quitclaim. and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppel. In Becton Dickinson Phils. (2) there is no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties. A quitclaim is ineffective in barring recovery of the full measure of a worker's rights. National Labor Relations Commission. Without doubt.. it is clear from the decisions of the LA. the law looks with disfavor on quitclaims and releases by employees who have been inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities and frustrate just claims of employees. Indubitably. LlB – 2 183 M a . In exceptional cases. Agripino was actually and totally deprived of his retirement benefit. may do succumb to the same pressure. v. That prerogative is exclusively lodged in the employee. Generally. (3) the consideration of the quitclaim is credible and reasonable. the voluntariness of the respondents' retirement is the meat of the instant controversy. provided he has served at least five years in the establishment concerned.

tantamount to illegal dismissal. 184 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Respondents did not voluntarily retire but were forced to retire.

University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests 185 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 Labor Standards LlB – 2 Midterm Case .

Petitioner and Lt. that they sent notices of the hearings to her Notices of hearing are not summonses. He instead.R. 1988. he should instead designate another person to serve the process. and Cunanan (the new contractor ) for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Petitioner appealed to the NLRC claiming that the Labor Arbiter never acquired jurisdiction over her person because no summons or copies of the complaints. likewise. Lt. Col. private respondents filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. Larkins vs NLRC (1995) G. Col. It is basic that the Labor Arbiter cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent without the latter being served with summons. Col. The provisions and prevailing jurisprudence in Civil Procedure may be applied by analogy to NLRC proceedings (Revised Rules of the NLRC. In the absence of service of summons or a valid waiver thereof. which the Labor Arbiter deemed a waiver on their part to do so." petitioner argued that the attempts to serve her with notices of hearing were not in accordance with the provisions of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement of 1947. 3). Sec. They contend. Held: No jurisdiction was ever acquired by the Labor Arbiter over the case and the person of petitioner and the judgment rendered is null and void. were ever served on her. the hearings and judgment rendered by the Labor Arbiter are null and void. Frankhauser and petitioner "guilty of illegal dismissal" and ordered them to reinstate private respondents with full back wages. or if that is no longer possible. San Fernando.. the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision granting all the claims of private respondents. Pampanga. Summonses and other processes issued by Philippine courts and administrative agencies for United States Armed Forces personnel within any U. both original and amended. 92432 Facts: On August 12. He found both Lt. and obtain the server's affidavit for filing with the appropriate court. Frankhauser and not the Base Commander.S. against petitioner Larkins. If he withholds giving his permission. addressed the summons to Lt. Col. failed to submit their position paper. Respondent Labor Arbiter did not follow said procedure. Frankhauser failed to answer the complaint and to appear at the hearings. In her "Supplemental Memorandum to Memorandum of Appeal. however. III of the NLRC. a member of the United States Air Force (USAF) assigned to oversee the dormitories of the Third Aircraft Generation Squadron (3 AGS) at Clark Air Base. to pay private respondents' separation pay. base in the Philippines could be served therein only with the permission of the Base Commander. Issue: WON the questioned resolutions are null and void.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case T/Sgt. Frankhauser. Respondents do not dispute petitioner's claim that no summons was ever issued and served on her. Pampanga. On the basis of private respondents' position paper and supporting documents. They. Rule I. 186 M a .

Col. Frankhauser and petitioner were being sued in their personal capacities for tortious acts. She may have raised in her pleadings grounds other than lack of jurisdiction. 187 M a .S. operated and maintained the dormitories at Clark Air Base for members of the USAF.S. in the case at bench. The employer of private respondents. However. Frankhauser acting for and in behalf of the U. assuming that jurisdiction was acquired over the United States Government and the monetary claims of private respondents proved. Private respondents were dismissed from their employment by Lt.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Petitioner. Indeed. Government which. Col. but by the United States government. private respondents named 3 AGS as one of the respondents in their complaint. The employer of private respondents was neither Lt. Be that as it may. petitioner set forth only one issue and that is the absence of jurisdiction over her person. but these grounds were discussed in relation to and as a result of the issue of the lack of jurisdiction. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . does not constitute a waiver of the lack of summons and a voluntary submission of her person to the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. on the assumption that petitioner validly waived service of summons on her. Col. There is no allegation from the pleadings filed that Lt. Col. still the case could not prosper. Frankhauser nor petitioner. such awards will have to be satisfied not by Lt. was the U. Government. as found by NLRC. In effect. by right of sovereign power. If an appearance before the NLRC is precisely to question the jurisdiction of the said agency over the person of the defendant. appealed to the NLRC and participated in the oral argument before the said body. This. then this appearance is not equivalent to service of summons. Frankhauser and petitioner in their personal capacities. however.

an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case UERM Memorial Medical Center vs NLRC (1997) G. 6640 and 6727. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .00 for a surety bond.448. On 6 October 1992. as amended by Republic Act No. Issue: WON in perfecting an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a property bond is excluded by the two forms of appeal bond — cash or surety — as enumerated in Article 223 of the Labor Code.345. 6715. The private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Article 223 of the Labor Code. correction of the wage distortion and the payment of salaries for Saturdays and Sundays under Policy Instruction No. 1104419 Facts: Consequently. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the NLRC in a resolution dated 7 June 1993.56 with a warning that failure to do so would cause the dismissal of the appeal. The NLRC directed petitioners to post a cash or surety bond of P17.082. claiming salary differentials under Republic Act Nos. The applicable law is Article 223 of the Labor Code. a complaint was filed by the private respondents. represented by the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). the NLRC dismissed petitioners' appeal. 54. as amended. Held: Yes." 188 M a .000. Labor Arbiter Nieves de Castro sustained the private respondents except for their claim of wage distortion. requires the posting of a cash or surety bond.650. the petitioners filed their Notice and Memorandum of Appeal with a Real Estate Bond consisting of land and various improvements therein worth P102.R. which provides: "In case of a judgment involving a monetary award. Within the reglementary period for appeal. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging it is not in a viable financial condition to post a cash bond nor to pay the annual premium of P700.

189 M a ." The word "only" makes it perfectly clear.650. NLRC we ruled: "x x x that while Article 223 of the Labor Code. requiring a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from for the appeal to be perfected." We reiterate this policy which stresses the importance of deciding cases on the basis of their substantive merit and not on strict technical rules. the judgment involved is more than P17 million and its precipitate execution can adversely affect the existence of petitioner medical center. In YBL (Your Bus Line) v." Then too. 6715. adhering to the principle that substantial justice is better served by allowing the appeal on the merits threshed out by the NLRC. Inc. We are also confident that the real property bond posted by the petitioners sufficiently protects the interests of private respondents should they finally prevail. In the case at bar. The requirement is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay. nevertheless. the issues involved are not insignificant and they deserve a full discourse by our quasi-judicial and judicial authorities. especially since petitioner disputes the allegation that private respondent was illegally dismissed. The judgment in favor of private respondent is only a little more than P17 million. however. their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims. that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected. or even evade. in Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative. may be considered a jurisdictional requirement. Likewise. Considering. the Court finds and so holds that the foregoing requirement of the law should be given a liberal interpretation. It is not disputed that the real property offered by petitioners is worth P102. as amended by Republic Act No. that the current policy is not to strictly follow technical rules but rather to take into account the spirit and intention of the Labor Code. v. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .345. it would be prudent for us to look into the merits of the case.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case We have given a liberal interpretation to this provision. National Labor Relations Commission we held: "The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is underscored by the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected "only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.

Held: The petition lacks merit. 190 M a . 124100 Facts: Private respondent Roberto Nieva filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and 13th month pay with the NLRC’s National Capital Region Arbitration Branch in Manila. Issue: WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied the motion of Philtranco to dismiss complaint based on improper venue. On August 28. but also because the latter was hired. As regards the first issue. not only because Nieva was a resident thereof. that the complaint should have been lodged with the NLRC’s Regional Arbitration Branch in Legaspi City.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Philtranco Services vs NLRC (1998) G. The case was subsequently assigned to Labor Arbiter Cornelio L. The motion to dismiss was denied by the labor arbiter. 1992. petitioner and employer Philtranco filed a position paper with motion to dismiss. Linsangan. having been absent without leave from October 19 to November 20. among other things. and based in Legaspi City. Philtranco presented its evidence to prove that Nieva had abandoned his work.R. 1989. Thereafter. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . stating. this Court has previously declared that the question of venue essentially pertains to the trial and relates more to the convenience of the parties rather than upon the substance and merits of the case. assigned. and so with the subsequent motions filed having the same argument.

the mother of Amelita passed away. Sulpicio Lines. Martin Funeral Home on February 6. 1995. 1996. In fact. St. However. as stated earlier. we are of the opinion that Labor Arbiter Arthur L. provided the venue chosen is not altogether oppressive to the employer. so the latter took over the management of the business. this Court held that: “This provision is obviously permissive. we held that: “Section 1. Rule IV of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. the worker may waive said benefit. as a driver of Philtranco. Rule IV of the 1990 NLRC Rules additionally provides that. the aforesaid Section has been declared by this Court to be merely permissive. Martin Funeral Homes vs NLRC (1998) G.” From the foregoing. workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned when the cause of action arose. vs. Nieva. On January 22. In Dayag vs. the Constitutional protection accorded to labor is a paramount and compelling factor.’ allowing a different venue when the interests of substantial justice demand a different one.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Provisions on venue are intended to assure convenience for the plaintiff and his witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. NLRC. Inc. ‘for purposes of venue. evidently showing that the rule is intended for the exclusive benefit of the worker. Petitioner on the other hand claims that private respondent was not its employee but only the uncle of Amelita Malabed.” Moreover. for the said section uses the word ‘may. there was no contract of employment executed between him and petitioner nor was his name included in the semi-monthly payroll.00.R. the latter filed a complaint charging that petitioner had illegally terminated his employment. cited by Philtranco in support of its contention that venue of the illegal dismissal case filed by Nieva is improperly laid. This being the case. Furthermore. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Martin’s Funeral Home and in January 1996. Manila being considered as part of Nieva’s workplace by reason of his plying the Legaspi City-Pasay City route. Amelita made some changes in the business operation and private respondent and his wife were no longer allowed to participate in the management thereof. In said case. Amansec was correct in concluding that Manila could be considered part of the complainant’s territorial workplace. 130866 Facts: Private respondent alleges that he started working as Operations Manager of petitioner St. speaks of the complainant/petitioner’s workplace. Section 1(a). In any case. the owner of petitioner St. The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner 191 M a . As a consequence. NLRC is exactly in point. he was dismissed from his employment for allegedly misappropriating P38.’ Since the private respondent’s regular place of assignment is the vessel MV Cotabato Princess which plies the Manila-Estancia-Iloilo-Zamboanga-Cotabato route. was assigned to the Legaspi City-Pasay City route.000. it is obvious that the filing of the complaint with the National Capital Region Arbitration Branch was proper.

the amount of which vary according to the length of service rendered by the availing employee. Consequently. all such petitions should henceforth 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.P. or an imprecision in the terminology used therein as from the records. 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. vs Saornido (2003) G. whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the SC are allowed would not subserve.A. The Court is. Held: NLRC decisions are appealable to the Court of Appeals. the legislative intendment was that the special civil action for certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. but there was an inaccuracy in the term used for the intended mode of review. Therefore.R. however. 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines) and B. and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the special civil action for certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals. amending B. the Court saw the need for reassessment of this procedural aspect. the legislative changes introduced over the years into the provisions of P. Ludo & Luym Corp. 7902. The Court noted that there may have been an oversight in the course of the deliberations on R. In view of the increasing number of labor disputes that find their way to the Supreme Court. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) and the present state of the law where there is no provision for appeals from the decision of the NLRC. 129. respondent union entered into a collective bargaining agreement with LUDO which provides certain benefits to the employees.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case declaring that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties and therefore his office had no jurisdiction over the case.D.. 140690 Facts: On April 1992. Congress had intended to provide for judicial review of the adjudication of the NLRC in labor cases by the Supreme Court. the intention of the Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495. 192 M a . therefore. The important distinction between them. of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the SC were eliminated. The use of the word “appeal” in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .P No. all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. but would subvert. Issue: WON the decision of the NLRC are appealable to the Court of Appeals.

C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .707. b. as listed in the Annex A. being entitled to the CBA benefits during the regular employment. d. Accordingly. In its decision dated April 18. the matter was submitted for voluntary arbitration. standard companion issues on reliefs and remedies are deemed incorporated. 193 M a . the award of benefits by the arbitrator was done in excess of jurisdiction. b) vacation leave & c) annual wage and salary increases during such period in the amount of FIVE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY ONE PESOS AND SIXTY ONE CENTAVOS (P5. Thus. the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator. The parties accordingly executed a submission agreement raising the sole issue of the date of regularization of the workers for resolution by the Voluntary Arbitrator. Hence. are awarded a) sick leave. in view of the foregoing. the whole arbitration process would be rendered purely academic and the law creating it inutile. Otherwise. shall be considered regular employees of the respondents six (6) months from the first day of service at CLAS. an interest of twelve (12) percent per annum or one (1) percent per month shall be imposed to the award from the date of promulgation until fully paid if only to speed up the payment of these long over due CBA benefits deprived of the complaining workers. c. all separation and/or retirement benefits shall be construed from the date of regularization aforementioned subject only to the appropriate government laws and other social legislation. the Voluntary Arbitrator ruled that: (1) the respondent employees were engaged in activities necessary and desirable to the business of petitioner. On the matter of the benefits. this Voluntary Arbitrator finds the claims of the complainants meritorious and so hold that: a.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Thereafter. LUDO failed to act on the request. In due time. the union requested LUDO to include in its members’ period of service the time during which they rendered arrastre services to LUDO through the CLAS when they were not yet hired as regular rank-and-file employees so that they could get higher benefits.261. On appeal.61) as computed in "Annex A". the 214 complainants. Petitioner contends that the appellate court gravely erred when it upheld the award of benefits which were beyond the terms of submission agreement. and (2) CLAS is a labor-only contractor of petitioner. the respondents shall pay attorney’s fees of ten (10) percent of the total award. the said complainants. 1997. LUDO filed a motion for reconsideration. which was denied. It disposed of the case thus: WHEREFORE. Petitioner asserts that the arbitrator must confine its adjudication to those issues submitted by the parties for arbitration. respondents argue that the arbitrator is empowered to award the assailed benefits because notwithstanding the sole issue of the date of regularization. which in this case is the sole issue of the date of regularization of the workers.

The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies referred to in the immediately preceding article. Held: Arbitrator can award benefits not claimed in the submission agreement. shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The pertinent provisions of the Labor Code. even in the absence of stenographic notes. 4. --. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Accordingly. moral. Art. read: Art. Termination disputes. exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations. Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. the following cases involving all workers. its Regional Offices and the Regional Directors of the Department of Labor and Employment shall not entertain disputes.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Issue: WON a Voluntary Arbitrator can award benefits not claimed in the submission agreement. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. The Commission. grievances or matters under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and shall immediately dispose and refer the same to the Grievance Machinery or Voluntary Arbitration provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. gross violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement shall mean flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of such agreement. 3.(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment. 194 M a . within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension. except those which are gross in character. those cases that workers may file involving wage. rates of pay. Claims for actual. 261. The jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators and Labor Arbiters is clearly defined and specifically delineated in the Labor Code. whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. For purposes of this article. violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. 217. Unfair labor practice cases: 2.

in Reformist Union of R. as already indicated. the arbitrator can assume that he has the necessary power to make a final settlement since arbitration is the final resort for the adjudication of disputes. Comparatively. in the affirmative case. Inc. law and jurisprudence give the voluntary arbitrator enough leeway of authority as well as adequate prerogative to accomplish the reason for which the law on voluntary arbitration was created . It bears stressing that the underlying reason why this case arose is to settle. since arbitration is the final resort for the adjudication of disputes. can possibly include money claims in one form or another. thus: In general. Generally. The succinct reasoning enunciated by the CA in support of its holding. once and for all. 262. to the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. said arbitrator renders arbitration services provided for under labor laws. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. the arbitrator is expected to decide those questions expressly stated and limited in the submission agreement. NLRC. and as a mode of arbitration where the parties are compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party. While the submission agreement mentioned only the determination of the date or regularization. However. The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . viewed his authority as embracing not merely the determination of the abstract question of whether or not a performance bonus was to be granted but also. By the same token. we held in San Jose vs. In one case. the issue of regularization should be viewed as two-tiered issue. the ultimate question of whether respondent employees are entitled to higher benefits. Liner. To require them to file another action for payment of such benefits would certainly undermine 195 M a . compulsory arbitration has been defined both as "the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is binding on all the parties. shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. vs." In construing the above provisions. Articles 217. upon agreement of the parties. assuming that the submission empowers the arbitrator to decide whether an employee was discharged for just cause. the Supreme Court stressed that "xxx 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. the arbitrator in this instance can reasonable assume that his powers extended beyond giving a yes-or-no answer and included the power to reinstate him with or without back pay. While a voluntary arbitrator is not part of the governmental unit or labor department’s personnel.B.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Art. in a proper case. Thus. the arbitrator is expected to decide only those questions expressly delineated by the submission agreement. Nevertheless. NLRC.speedy labor justice. the amount thereof. The Arbitrator. that the Voluntary Arbitrator in a labor controversy has jurisdiction to render the questioned arbitral awards. the arbitrator can assume that he has the power to make a final settlement. 261 and 262. deserves our concurrence. that the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators over the cases enumerated in the Labor Code.

the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the 428 complainants. Petitioners filed a Motion for the Reconsideration of the decision (with a motion to conduct clarificatory hearings). Petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC. The complainants averred that they were regular employees of Hanjin and that they were separated from employment without any lawful or just cause.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case labor proceedings and contravene the constitutional mandate providing full protection to labor. holiday pay. Petitioners also submitted to the NLRC folders consisting mostly of payrolls. the complainants were regular employees of petitioner Hanjin. Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co. which affirmed with modification the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on January 28. and their claims for underpayment. vs Court of Appeals (2006) G. 2000. before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). as well as resignation letters of others who were given monetary awards in the decision. Ltd. 1998. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .R. 165910 Facts: In April 1998. On May 12. and service incentive leave would be computed after sufficient data were made available. 13th month pay. 196 M a . premium pay for holiday and rest day. granting separation pay and attorney’s fees to each of them. 712 employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal and for payment of benefits against Hanjin and Nam Hyun Kim. it appearing that their names appeared twice in the list. the officer-in-charge of the project (herein petitioners). Petitioners appended to their motion machine copies of some of the complainants’ employment contracts. The NLRC dismissed the complaints of 34 complainants and awarded monetary benefits to the others. According to the Labor Arbiter.

under the Constitution and the Revised Rules of Court. 2004. The Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari. Petitioner then filed in the SC a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case On July 20.R. of the Constitution provides that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as may be established by law. petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court in the CA. However. Inasmuch as the appellate court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over quasijudicial agencies under Rule 43. On March 18. on the ground that the NLRC has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. the Sandiganbayan. Article VIII. under Rule 45. The remedy of the aggrieved party from the CA decision. One such quasi-judicial agency is the NLRC. the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC’s ruling that the dismissed employees (respondents) were regular employees. 197 M a . the petition for certiorari shall be final and is cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of bench or instrumentality of the government. which the CA denied. Moreover. unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules. unless authorized by law. may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. petitions for review on certiorari should be filed only with the CA. the Regional Trial Court or any other court. the NLRC issued a Resolution partially granting petitioners’ motion. with prayer for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. Issue: WON petitioner’s appeal under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is proper. Thus. 67601 as well as the Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The CA stressed that petitioners failed to refute the claim of the respondents that they were regular employees. raising only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. if a petition for certiorari involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency and unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court. prohibitions and mandamus. as amended. and may review on appeal or certiorari as the law on the Rules of Court may provide final judgment and orders of lower courts. SP No. 2001. seeking the annulment of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 .Unsatisfied. judicial review of the decisions or final orders of the NLRC should be filed with the CA under Section 5 of Rule 65. shall be by petition for review on certiorari with this Court under Rule 45. a party appealing from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA. in turn. Section 1. and cases in which only questions of law is involved. Petitioners moved to reconsider the decision. Held: Petitioner’s recourse to this Court via Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court was inappropriate.

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

The aggrieved party is proscribed from assailing a decision or final order of the CA via
Rule 65 because such recourse is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the course of law. In this case, petitioners have an adequate
remedy, namely, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
It must be stressed that the remedies of appeal under Rule 45 and an original action for
certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive.
The general rule is that a cert writ will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available
to the aggrieved party. The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not
alternative or cumulative. Hence, the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is
not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available.
The proper recourse of the aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. On the other hand, if
the error subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was
perpetrated by a quasi-judicial officer or agency with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the
aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules.
Anent the first issue, in order to determine whether the recourse of petitioners is proper
or not, it is necessary to draw a line between an error of judgment and an error of
jurisdiction. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal. On the other hand, an
error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer
or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. This error is
correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the court to issue a cert writ cannot be exercised in order
to review the judgment of the lower court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the
law or the facts of the case.
The general rule is that questions or findings of facts in the lower court, board or
tribunal, and the probative weight and sufficiency of the evidence upon which the said
findings were based are not reviewable by certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules
of Court. However, the sufficiency of the evidence may be inquired into in order to
determine whether jurisdictional facts were or were not proved or whether the lower
court had exceeded its jurisdiction. This exception arises out of the most important
office and function of the writ - the keeping of the lower court and tribunal within their
jurisdiction. If the decision of the lower court as to the sufficiency of the evidence to
establish jurisdictional facts were not reviewable, certiorari would be of no avail as a
remedy against an assumption of jurisdiction. For the purpose of enabling the reviewing
court to determine whether jurisdictional facts were established, it may delve into and
review the evidence on which such facts were based.

198 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

Concededly, there were occasions when this Court treated a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court as one filed under Rule 45, provided the petition is
filed within the prescribed period, and that there are special circumstances alleged
therein. The circumstances prevailing in the instant case do not justify a deviation from
the general rule. For one thing, the petition was filed way beyond the reglementary
period allowed under Rule 45 without any justifiable reason therefor; for another,
petitioners did not proffer any reasonable explanation which would warrant a deviation
from the general rule.
As gleaned from the records, petitioners received a copy of the assailed CA decision on
March 24, 2004 and filed its motion for reconsideration on April 6, 2004. Petitioners
received a copy of the Order dated October 11, 2004 denying their Motion for
Reconsideration on October 20, 2004. Instead of filing a petition under Rule 45, they
filed on November 23, 2004 the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
Petitioners had until November 4, 2004 within which to file a petition for review on
certiorari on pure questions of law. However, as already stated, petitioners filed their
petition in this Court only on November 23, 2004; indubitably, the decision of the CA
had by then already become final and executory, beyond the purview of this Court to
act upon.
Since the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition under Rule 65, any alleged
errors committed by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction would be errors of judgment
which are reviewable by timely appeal and not by a special civil action of certiorari. If
the aggrieved party fails to do so within the reglementary period, and the decision
accordingly becomes final and executory, he cannot avail himself of the writ of
certiorari, his predicament being the effect of his deliberate inaction.
The appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under
Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, now Rule 45
and Rule 65, respectively, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 45 is clear that the
decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless
of the nature of the action or proceeding involved, may be appealed to this Court by
filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process
over the original case. Under Rule 45, the reglementary period to appeal is fifteen (15)
days from notice of judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration.
For the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to issue, a petitioner must
show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
against its perceived grievance. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and adequate" if
it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the
acts of the lower court or agency. In this case, appeal was not only available but also a
speedy and adequate remedy.
Clearly, petitioners interposed the present special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65
as an alternative to their petition not because it is the speedy and adequate remedy but

199 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

to make up for the loss of their right of an ordinary appeal. It is elementary that the
special civil action of certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where
the latter remedy is available, as it was in this case. A special civil action under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court cannot cure a party’s failure to timely file a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Rule 65 is an independent action
that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal,
including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by a party’s
neglect or error in the choice of remedies. There are exceptions to this rule: (a) when
public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader
interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when
the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. None of
these recognized exceptions, however, is present in the case at bar. Petitioners failed to
show circumstances that would justify a deviation from the general rule as to make
available a petition for certiorari in lieu of taking an appeal.
Whether or not respondents were project employees or regular employees is a question
of fact. To arrive at a conclusion, the Court will have to delve into and weigh and
calibrate the documentary and testimonial evidence of the parties. However, the Court
is proscribed from re-examining the evidence on record and weighing the same in a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. It must be stressed
that the only issue before the Court in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is whether
the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction
in its decision. In this case, the CA aptly stated, thus:
What is before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which
will lie only in cases where a grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of
jurisdiction is clearly shown to have been committed by the respondent Commission,
and the Court’s jurisdiction to review decisions or resolutions of the respondent NLRC
does not include a correction of its evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, it is a
fundamental rule that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the respondent
NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded not only great
respect but even finality, and are binding upon this Court, unless the petitioner is able
to clearly demonstrate that respondent Commission had arbitrarily disregarded
evidence before it or had misapprehended evidence to such an extent as to compel a
contrary conclusion if such evidence had been properly appreciated, or if the findings of
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are contrary to each other.

200 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

University of San Carlos – College of Law
Digests

Labor Standards

Midterm Case

Phil. Journalistic Inc., vs NLRC (2006) G.R. 166421
Facts:
In NLRC’s Resolution dated May 31, 2001, petitioner Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI) was
adjudged liable in the total amount of P6,447,008.57 for illegally dismissing 31
complainants-employees and that there was no basis for the implementation of
petitioner's retrenchment program. Thereafter, the parties executed a Compromise
Agreement dated July 9, 2001, where PJI undertook to reinstate the 31 complainantemployees effective July 1, 2001 without loss of seniority rights and benefits; 17 of them
who were previously retrenched were agreed to be given full and complete payment of
their respective monetary claims, while 14 others would be paid their monetary claims
minus what they received by way of separation pay.
The compromise agreement was submitted to the NLRC for approval. All the employees
mentioned in the agreement and in the NLRC Resolution affixed their signatures
thereon. They likewise signed the Joint Manifesto and Declaration of Mutual Support and
Cooperation which had also been submitted for the consideration of the labor tribunal.
The NLRC forthwith issued another Resolution on July 25, 2002, which among others
declared that Thus, the compromise agreement was approved and NCMB-NCR-NS-03087-00 was deemed closed and terminated.
In the meantime, however, the Union filed another Notice of Strike on July 1, 2002. In an
Order dated September 16, 2002, the DOLE Secretary certified the case to the
Commission for compulsory arbitration. The case was docketed as NCMB-NCR- NS-07251-02. In its Resolution dated July 31, 2003, the NLRC ruled that the complainants were
not illegally dismissed. The May 31, 2001 Resolution declaring the retrenchment
program illegal did not attain finality as "it had been academically mooted by the
compromise agreement entered into between both parties on July 9, 2001."
The Union assailed the ruling of the NLRC before the CA via petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. In its Decision dated August 17, 2004, the appellate court held that the NLRC
gravely abused its discretion in ruling for PJI. The compromise agreement referred only
to the award given by the NLRC to the complainants in the said case, that is, the
obligation of the employer to the complainants.
Issue: WON the petitioner’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure is a proper remedy in this case.
Held: At the outset, we note that this case was brought before us via petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The proper remedy,
however, was to file a petition under Rule 45. It must be stressed that certiorari under
Rule 65 is "a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general
utility tool in the legal workshop." Moreover, the special civil action for certiorari will lie

201 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l
Rm 402

LlB – 2

the Labor Arbiter rendered his decision favoring Josefina and ordering petitioner to pay backwages and other money judgment. a petition for certiorari may be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. 6938 (Cooperative Code) which dispensed with such requirement. As the instant petition was filed within the prescribed fifteen-day period. petitioners are exempt from putting up a bond in an appeal from the decision of the inferior court. and in view of the substantial issues raised. Inc. alleging that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in directing them to post an appeal bond despite the clear mandate of Article 62. On March 23. Balagtas appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but failed to post either a cash or surety bond as required by Article 223 of the Labor Code. 1998. petitioners filed a manifestation and motion. Aggrieved. The case was referred to a Labor Arbiter.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case only when a court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. 1998. When the parties failed to settle their differences. and non-payment of 13th month pay or Christmas Bonus against "Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative. the CA resolved to dismiss the petition in the assailed decision dated September 27. Instead. She pray(ed) that she be reinstated and paid backwages as well as moral damages. paragraph (7) of Republic Act No. among others. Article 62(7) of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. Hipolito-Herrero filed a complaint with the Provincial Office of the Department of Labor in Malolos. Such move is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice. the Court resolves to give due course to the petition and treat the same as a petition for review on certiorari. Balagtas Multi-Purpose Coop vs Court of Appeals (2006) G. stating. the LRC struck down petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Be that as it may. 1998. that under Republic Act No. 159268 Facts: Petitioner Josefina G. Trial ensued.R. they were required to submit their respective position papers. After the parties submitted their respective pleadings. On July 20. Bulacan for illegal dismissal. 6938. the NLRC rendered the assailed order denying petitioner’s prayer and on September 28. 202 M a . C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . 2002 holding that the exemption from putting up a bond by a cooperative applies to cases decided by inferior courts only.

where a provision of law expressly limits its application to certain transactions. Statutes which are plain and specific should be applied without attempted construction and interpretation. This follows the well-settled principle that exceptions are to be strictly but reasonably construed. enlarge the scope of a statute and include therein situations not provided nor intended by the lawmakers.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Issue: Whether cooperatives are exempted from filing a cash or surety bond required to perfect an employer's appeal under Section 223 of Presidential Decree No. exemption. where a general rule is established by a statute with exceptions. It must be kept in mind that the enactment of the Cooperative Code is pursuant to the State's declared policy of fostering the "creation and growth of cooperatives as a practical vehicle for prompting self-reliance and harnessing people power towards the attainment of economic development and social justice. the Court will not curtail the former nor add to the latter by implication. 442 (the Labor Code). or saving clause excludes other exceptions." Towards this end." the same must be strictly construed. Consequently. The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislative body would not have made specific enumerations in a statute." In line with this. it cannot be extended to other transactions by interpretation. Considering that the above provision relates to "tax and other exemptions. and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than the exceptions. An express exception. Express exceptions constitute the only limitations on the operation of a statute and no other exception will be implied. in the guise of interpretation. financial assistance and other services to enable said cooperatives to develop into viable and responsive economic enterprises and thereby bring about a strong cooperative movement that is free from any conditions that might infringe upon the autonomy or organizational integrity of cooperatives. if it had the intention not to restrict its meaning and confine its terms to those expressly mentioned. certain benefits and privileges were expressly granted to cooperative entities under the statute. The provision invoked by petitioners regarding the exemption from payment of an appeal bond is only one among a number of such privileges which appear under the article entitled "Tax and Other Exemptions" of the code. Courts may not. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Thus. The provision cited by petitioners cannot be taken in isolation and must be interpreted in relation to the Cooperative Code in its entirety. they extend only so far as their language warrants. the government has been mandated to "ensure the provision of technical guidance. Held: Petitioners are not exempt from posting the appeal bond required under Article 223 of the Labor Code. The term "court" has a settled meaning in this jurisdiction which cannot be reasonably interpreted as extending to quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC unless otherwise clearly 203 M a .

during the period of appeal. No. the petition was remanded to the CA and redocketed as CA-G. 119.R. the obvious and logical purpose of an appeal bond is to insure. 1999 Decision. this Court through Justice Jose Vitug. SP No. 130866. Consequently. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. to wit: Art. thus: Therefore. all references in the amended section 9 of B. all such petitions should henceforth 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. (1) The Labor Code and all other labor laws shall apply to all cooperatives. reasoning this way: 204 M a .R.P. Thus. In any event. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . In this case. petitioners must comply with the requirement set forth in Article 223 of the Labor Code in order to perfect their appeal to the NLRC. Subsequently. dismissing petitioner's appeal for lack of merit with the finding that respondent NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. natural or inherent right. St. It is a privilege of statutory origin and. For this reason. No. in its pronouncement that the Labor Arbiter did not make any finding on the alleged employer-employee relationship between the parties. against any occurrence that would defeat or diminish recovery by the employee under the judgment if the latter is subsequently affirmed. Compliance with Other Laws. 1998. rendered the landmark Decision in this case then docketed as G.R. therefore. Article 119 of the Cooperative Code itself expressly embodies the legislative intention to extend the coverage of labor statutes to cooperatives. This is consistent with the State's constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor in order to forcefully and meaningfully underscore labor as a primary social and economic force. Simply because these tribunals or agencies exercise quasi-judicial functions does not convert them into courts of law. available only if granted or provided by statute. The law may validly provide limitations or qualifications thereto or relief to the prevailing party in the event an appeal is interposed by the losing party. Martin Funeral Homes vs NLRC (2006) G. It must be pointed out that the right to appeal is not a constitutional. 49183. holding for the first time that all petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the decisions of the NLRC should henceforth be filed with the CA.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case and expressly indicated in the wording of the statute. the CA rendered the assailed September 30. 142351 Facts: On September 16.

but committed the blunder of not attaching to the petition even the Decision of the Labor Arbiter sought to be reviewed. it is clear that the issue submitted for resolution is a question of fact which is proscribed by the rule disallowing factual issues in appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. the position papers and memoranda of the parties filed with the Labor Arbiter. NLRC (135 SCRA 674. Held: At the outset. Evidently this issue is embraced by the circumscription. petitioner cannot be given the relief prayed for. and other pieces of evidence that we can consider in resolving the factual issue on employment. respondent NLRC. the affidavits of petitioner's employees. DOLE Phils. Without these vital documents.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Actually the Labor Arbiter did not determine whether there is an employer-employee relation between the parties because according to him. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Martin would like the Court to examine the pleadings and documentary evidence extant on the records of the Labor Arbiter to determine if said official indeed made a finding on the existence of the alleged employer-employee nexus between the parties based on the facts contained in said pleadings and evidence. The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not mere errors of judgment. This is explicit in Rule 45. 677 (1988))." Petitioner St. Martin asks us to find out if the Labor Arbiter was correct in concluding that respondent Aricayos was not in its employ. Issue: WON the Labor Arbiter made a determination of the presence of an employeremployee relationship. It is the contention of petitioner that the NLRC properly assumed jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of the instant case. is remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter. we are precluded by the abject failure of petitioner to attach to the petition important and material portions of the records as would support the petition prescribed by Rule 45. Section 4. petitioner argues that judicial review under Rule 65 of the revised Rules of Civil Procedure is limited only to issues concerning want or excess or jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.R. reminded the latter that he is authorized by the NLRC Rules to determine. 161115 Facts: Anent the first assignment of error. vs Esteva (2006) G. Section 1 that petitions of this nature "shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. in an appropriate proceeding the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The errors assigned by the respondents in their Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals do not pertain to the 205 M a . such issue should be resolved by the regular court pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in De la Salle University vs. the NLRC Decision. St. For its part. Even if we would like to relax the rule and allow the examination of the documentary evidence as an exception to the general rule.

there must be capricious. committed grave abuse of discretion by 206 M a . cannot be availed of because there is no provision on appellate review of NLRC decisions in the Labor Code. a petition for certiorari of a decision or resolution of the NLRC should first be filed with the Court of Appeals. It is thus incumbent upon petitioner to satisfactorily establish that respondent Commission or executive labor arbiter acted capriciously and whimsically in total disregard of evidence material to or even decisive of the controversy. NLRC. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . namely. petition for review (Rules 42 and 43). in its Resolution. and that questions of fact are not a fit subject for a special civil action for certiorari. which is merely confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case jurisdiction of the NLRC. Held: There is no error on the CAs part when it made anew a factual determination of the matters. and petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45). therefore. Petitioner also posits that the Petition for Certiorari filed by respondents with the Court of Appeals raised questions of fact that would necessitate a review by the appellate court of the evidence presented by the parties before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. dated 29 February 2000. the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions. direct resort to the Supreme Court shall not be allowed unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify an availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise by the Supreme Court of its primary jurisdiction. are not within the province of a special civil action for certiorari. The Court of Appeals. in order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie. It has long been settled in the landmark case of St. as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction. in its assailed decision or resolution. The different modes of appeal. that the mode for judicial review over decisions of the NLRC is by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Issue: WON questions of fact are not a fit subject for a special civil action for certiorari. it has chosen to impose the strict observance of the hierarchy of courts. For certiorari to lie. and are thus not the proper subject of a petition for certiorari. they are rather errors of judgment supposedly committed by the the NLRC. as amended. and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically. Hence. can grant the Petition for Certiorari if it finds that the NLRC. Errors of judgment. The rule is settled that the original and exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to review a decision of respondent NLRC (or Executive Labor Arbiter as in this case) in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not normally include an inquiry into the correctness of its evaluation of the evidence. Martin Funeral Home v. writ of error (Rule 41). Although the same case recognizes that both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction over such petitions. arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power.

whimsically. in Gutib v. as in the instant case. 207 M a . because to do so would be to destroy its comprehensiveness and usefulness. Occasionally. National Labor Relations Commission: In Ong v. As this Court elucidated in Garcia v. The cases in which certiorari will issue cannot be defined. the appellate court can only evaluate the materiality or significance of the evidence. such as the NLRC. we see no error on its part when it made anew a factual determination of the matters and on that basis reversed the ruling of the NLRC. Earlier. or arbitrarily disregarding evidence which is material or decisive of the controversy. Necessarily. or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC. In the exercise of our superintending control over inferior courts. the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter. we emphasized thus: It has been said that a wide breadth of discretion is granted a court of justice in certiorari proceedings. we further held: In the review of an NLRC decision through a special civil action for certiorari. and the Court of Appeals cannot make this determination without looking into the evidence presented by the parties. Court of Appeals. As a corollary. however. the Court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings. which is alleged to have been capriciously. Hence. we are to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case "as the ends of justice may require. resolution is confined only to issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the labor tribunal. And in another case of recent vintage. if it finds that their consideration is necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. In this instance." So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice. The same principles are now necessarily adhered to and are applied by the Court of Appeals in its expanded jurisdiction over labor cases elevated through a petition for certiorari. in relation to all other evidence on record.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case capriciously. thus. we ruled that certiorari can be properly resorted to where the factual findings complained of are not supported by the evidence on record. whimsically. this Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters. So wide is the discretion of the court that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus. People. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . the Court refrains from reviewing factual assessments of lower courts and agencies exercising adjudicative functions. even if they are not assigned as errors in their appeal. the Court is constrained to delve into factual matters where.

January 21. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . only a period of 1 year and 3 months has passed by. Santiago filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Jr. Article 1155 of the Civil Code may be 208 M a . SP No. but this was denied by the RTC per Orders dated October 19. and damages. Respondent resigned from his employment on September 2. Basilio (Annex A of Motion for Reconsideration) . 23821. retirement benefits. Held: Respondent's claim had already prescribed as of September 1991. 151407 Facts: Ireneo Panganiban was employed as Assistant General Manager of the Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (petitioner) from May 1986 until his preventive suspension on August 26. the prescriptive period for money claims is subject to interruption. as respondent's claim was a labor money claim. unpaid commissions. SP No.. one of the defendants. Q-89-2244 against the members of the Board of Administrators (BOA) of petitioner alleging. and in the absence of an equivalent Labor Code provision for determining whether the said period may be interrupted.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. He resigned in April 1993. Branch 93. 1996. and in a Decision dated October 29. 1990. Manager Ceferino M.Thereafter. Kaimo. non-payment of his unpaid commissions. 1990. Like other causes of action.R. A motion to dismiss was filed by Joselito Santiago. respondent filed against petitioner a complaint for illegal dismissal. Express acknowledgment of debt by petitioners in a letter sent by Pio S. 1989. as it was interrupted in two instances: first." The term "money claims" covers all money claims arising from an employer-employee relation. by the filing of Civil Case No. The applicable law in this case is Article 291 of the Labor Code which provides that "all money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued. 1990 and November 23. 1988. Q-89-2244 by respondent with the RTC. by the express acknowledgment of the debt by petitioners. 1988. respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. docketed as CA-G. and second. 23821 up to the date of express acknowledgment of debt.. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Civil Case No. the CA granted Santiago's petition for lack of jurisdiction and set aside the RTC's Orders dated October 19. On July 24. From date of dismissal of CAG. Issue: WON respondent's claim for unpaid commissions in the amount has already prescribed. 1990 and November 23. 1993. Thus. 1991. separation pay. vs Panganiban (2007) G. respondent was elected by the BOA as Vice-President for Marketing in July 1992. among others.R. otherwise they shall be forever barred. Audit Group Head addressed to IBC Gen. On April 12.R. The CA ruled that respondent's money claim had not yet prescribed.

to wit: ART. Q-89-2244 could have interrupted the running of the three-year prescriptive period. 1155. respondent's cause of action had already prescribed on September 2. his claim. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . its dismissal or voluntary abandonment by plaintiff leaves the parties in exactly the same position as though no action had been commenced at all. when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors. when respondent filed his complaint for illegal dismissal. SP No. 1988. 1991. On this point.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case applied. Consequently. 23821 due to lack of jurisdiction effectively canceled the tolling of the prescriptive period within which to file his money claim. 209 M a . and (c) a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. Thus. Hence. (b) a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor. retirement benefits. its consequent dismissal by the CA in CA-G. three years after his cessation of employment on September 2. Q-892244. leaving respondent in exactly the same position as though no civil case had been filed at all.R. while the filing of Civil Case No. and damages in July 24. separation pay. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the Court. The running of the three-year prescriptive period not having been interrupted by the filing of Civil Case No. the prescription of an action is interrupted by (a) the filing of an action. clearly. 1996. and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. the Court ruled that although the commencement of a civil action stops the running of the statute of prescription or limitations. had already been barred by prescription.

Held: He can only demand for the overtime pay withheld for the period within three years preceding the filing of the complaint on March 20. Lebatique explained that he had never been paid for overtime work since he started working for the company. and ordered his reinstatement and the payment of his full back wages. On March 2000. if it is established that the benefits being claimed have been withheld from the employee for a period longer than three years. 2000. After talking to Manuel.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Far East Agricultural Supply vs Lebatigue (2007) G. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings to determine the exact amount of overtime pay and other monetary benefits due Jimmy Lebatique which herein petitioners should pay without further delay.R. the amount pertaining to the period beyond the three-year prescriptive period is therefore barred by prescription. Further. Note that all money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued. service incentive leave pay. On January 2000. 162813 Facts: Far East hired on March 1996 private respondent Jimmy Lebatique as truck driver with a daily wage of P223. Alexander asked him why he was claiming overtime pay. Issue: WON respondent is entltled to all money claims prayed for covering since he worked with the petitioner. 13th month pay. On January 26. and overtime pay. Lebatique sought the assistance of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Public Assistance and Complaints Unit concerning the nonpayment of his overtime pay.50. He also told Alexander that Manuel had fired him. Alexander terminated Lebatique and told him to look for another job. otherwise. Lebatique filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of overtime pay. He delivered animal feeds to the company's clients. they shall be forever barred. The Labor Arbiter found that Lebatique was illegally dismissed. 2000. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . The amount that can only be demanded by the aggrieved employee shall 210 M a .

Calamba. Issue: WON the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the factual findings of the NLRC cannot be reviewed in certiorari proceedings. On the other hand. the appellate court has no 211 M a . Letran Calamba Faculty & Employees Association vs NLRC (2008) G. considering that in this situation. payroll. However. 2002.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case be limited to the amount of the benefits withheld within three years before the filing of the complaint. On July 28. in concluding that the NLRC Decision was supported by substantial evidence. In the case of overtime pay. he can only demand for the overtime pay withheld for the period within three years preceding the filing of the complaint on March 20. Citing Agustilo v. Petitioner avers that the CA. Court of Appeals. Lebatique timely filed his claim for service incentive leave pay. Held: Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that since nowhere in the petition is there any acceptable demonstration that the LA or the NLRC acted either with grave abuse of discretion or without or in excess of its jurisdiction. the NLRC promulgated its Decision dismissing both appeals. 1999.Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA assailing the above-mentioned NLRC Decision and Resolution. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution dated June 21. the appellate court can review the factual findings and the legal conclusions of the NLRC. 2002. 156225 Facts: Three cases were consolidated involving petitioner Letran Calamba Faculty and Employees Association and Colegio de San Juan de Letran. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . failed to specify what constituted said evidence. 2000. his claim regarding nonpayment of overtime pay since he was hired in March 1996 is a different matter. for money claims and a petition to declare the subject strike illegal filed by respondent. the prescriptive period commences at the time he was terminated.R. The Labor Arbiter should have required petitioners to present the daily time records. 2000. petitioner contends that in a special civil action for certiorari brought before the CA. or other documents in management's control to determine the correct overtime pay due Lebatique. Thus. the CA rendered the presently assailed judgment dismissing the petition. we find insufficient the selected time records presented by petitioners to compute properly his overtime pay. petitioner asserts that the CA acted arbitrarily in affirming the Decision of the NLRC. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it in its Resolution promulgated on November 28. On May 14.

Metro Transit Organization vs Piglas NFWU-KMU et al. (2) unfair labor practice for union busting. the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dismissing the Petition. are binding on the Supreme Court.R. Cortez.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case reason to look into the correctness of the evaluation of evidence which supports the labor tribunals' findings of fact. as in this case.. Respondents filed with the Labor Arbiter Complaints against petitioners and the LRTA for the following: (1) illegal dismissal. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . Petitioner Jose L. petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the same. In a Resolution dated 19 May 2006. are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality. On 13 September 2004. was sued in his official capacity as then Undersecretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications and Chairman of the Board of Directors of petitioner MTO. and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Settled is the rule that the findings of the LA. 212 M a . the NLRC dismissed petitioners' appeal for nonperfection since it failed to post the required bond. which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters. In a petition for review on certiorari. Without filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the afore-quoted NLRC Resolution. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. Jr. unless patently erroneous. when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA. Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts. (3) moral and exemplary damages. They are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record. the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of respondents. We find none of these exceptions in the present case. On 24 August 2006. 175460 Facts: Petitioner MTO is a government owned and controlled corporation which entered into a Management and Operations Agreement (MOA) with the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) for the operation of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Baclaran-Monumento Line. this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous. Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). the Court invariably sustains the unanimous factual findings of the LA. (2008) G. the NLRC and the CA. In petitions for review on certiorari like the instant case. specially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence and there is no cogent basis to reverse the same. and (4) attorney's fees.

The rule is. to wit: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law. a motion for reconsideration is indispensable for it affords the NLRC an opportunity to rectify errors or mistakes it might have committed before resort to the courts can be had. As a rule." "speedy. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. or when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. the Court of Appeals. unless the lower court has been given the opportunity to correct the error imputed to it. The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. and adequate remedy. 213 M a . it must be shown that there is no appeal. It must be primarily established that petitioners contravened the procedural rule for the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. nor any plain. involving as it does the requirements of the property bond for the perfection of the appeal. petitioners directly went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari without filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . We have held that the "plain. In the case at bar. in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. We agree in the Court of Appeals' finding that petitioners' case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the filing of a motion for reconsideration. (3) in case of urgency. Held: Petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration against the assailed Resolution of the NLRC rendered its petition for certiorari before the appellate court as fatally defective." and "adequate remedy" referred to in Section 1. Evidently. the burden is on petitioners seeking exception to the rule to show sufficient justification for dispensing with the requirement. The rationale of the rule rests upon the presumption that the court or administrative body which issued the assailed order or resolution may amend the same. speedy. As the Court of Appeals reasoned. the issue before the NLRC is both factual and legal at the same time. The motion for reconsideration would have aptly furnished a plain. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a motion for reconsideration of the questioned Order or Resolution. for the writ to issue. if given the chance to correct its mistake or error.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Issue: WON petitioner can directly file the extraordinary remedy of certiorari without filing first a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration against the assailed Resolution of the NLRC rendered its petition for certiorari before the appellate court as fatally defective. As we consistently held in numerous cases. will not take cognizance of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. as well as the finding that petitioners failed to perfect the same. (2) when public interest is involved.

Nonetheless. 214 M a . even if we are to disregard the petitioners' procedural faux pas with the Court of Appeals. we still arrive at the conclusion that the NLRC did not err in denying petitioners' appeal for its failure to file a bond in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.University of San Carlos – College of Law Digests Labor Standards Midterm Case Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a shield from the adverse consequences of petitioners' own omission of the filing of the required motion for reconsideration. C e c e l i a T i m b a l Rm 402 LlB – 2 . and proceed to review the propriety of the 19 May 2006 NLRC Resolution.