LABOR LAW CASE DIGESTS

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION, et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS, et al. 502 SCRA 219 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) An ordinary striking worker may not be declared to have lost his employment status by mere participation in an illegal strike . The Arellano University Employees and Workers Union (the Union), the exclusive bargaining representative of about 380 rank-and-file employees of Arellano University, Inc. (the University), filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a Notice of Strike charging the University with Unfair Labor Practice (ULP). After several controversies and petitions, a strike w as staged. Upon the lifting of the strike, the University filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC issued a Resolution holding that the University was not guilty of ULP. Consequently, the strike was declared illegal. All the employees who participated in the illegal strike were thereafter declared to have lost their employment status. ISSUE: Whether or not an employee is deemed to have lost his employment by mere participation in an illegal strike HELD: Under Article 264 of the Labor Code, an ordinary striking worker may not be declared to have lost his employment status by mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. While the University adduced photographs showing strikers picketing outside the university premises, it failed to identify who they were. It thus failed to meet the substantiality of evidence test applicable in dismissal cases. With respect to the union officers, as already discussed, their mere participation in the illegal strike warrants their dismissal.

ASIA PACIFIC CHARTERING (PHILS.) INC. v. MARIA LINDA R. FAROLAN 393 SCRA 454 (2002), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) The termination of a managerial employee on the ground of ´loss of confidenceµ should have a basis and the determination of t he same cannot be left entirely to the employer. Petitioner Asia Pacific Chartering (Phils.) Inc. (Asia) is tasked with the selling of passenger and cargo spaces for Scandinavian Airlines System. Petitioner Asia, through its Vice President Catalino Bondoc (Bondoc), offered Respondent Maria Linda R. Farolan (Farolan) the sales manager position to which Farolan accepted. Upon Vice President Bondoc·s request, Farolan submitted a detailed report attributing the drop of sales revenue to market forces beyond her control. Consequently, Asia directed Roberto Zozobrado (Zozobrado) to implement solutions. Zozobrado informally took over Farolan·s marketing and sales responsibilities but she continued to receive her salary. Asia claims that the increase in sales revenue was due to Zozobrado·s management. Asia then sent a letter of termination to Farolan on the ground of loss of confidence , forcing Farolan to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found that the dismissal was illegal for lack of just cause, however, such decision was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) stating that the termination of employment due to loss of confidence is within management prerogative. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the labor arbiter·s decision. Hence, the filing of this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Farolan·s dismissal was illegal

1

HELD: A statement of the requisites for a valid dismissal of an employee is thus in order, to wit: (a) the employee must be afforded due process, i.e., he must be given opportunity to be heard and to defend himself; and (b) dismissal must be for a valid cause. The manner by which Respondent Farolan was dismissed violated the basic precepts of fairness and due process - Respondent Farolan was dismissed, without being afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in her defense. She was never given a written notice stating the particular acts or omission constituting the grounds for her dismissal as required by law. With respect to rank and file personnel, loss of trust and confidence as ground for valid dismissal requires proof of involvement in the alleged events in question and that mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not be sufficient. But as regards a managerial employee, mere existence of a basis for believing that such employee has breached the trust of his employer would suffice for his dismissal. Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for an employee·s dismissal must be based on a willful breach and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse. It is not disputed that Farolan·s job description, and the terms and conditions of her employment, with the exception of her salary and allowances, were never reduced to writing. Even assuming, however, that Farolan was a managerial employee, the stated ground (in the letter of termination) for her dismissal, loss of confidence, should have a basis and determination thereof cannot be left entirely to the employer. BACOLOD-TALISAY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al. v. ROMEO DELA CRUZ 587 SCRA 304 (2009), SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) The twin notice requirement provided by law should be observed in order for a dismissal to be valid. Romeo dela Cruz (respondent) is an employee of Bacolod-Talisay Realty Development Corporation (Bacolod-Talisay) as an overseer. He was suspended for 30 days for payroll paddling, selling canepoints without the knowledge and consent of management and misappropriating the proceeds thereof, and renting out tractor for use in another farm. After 30 days, he received a letter informing him that he was dismissed from his work. Respondent dela Cruz and Bacolod-Talisay had a confrontation before the barangay council but they did not reach any settlement. A case for illegal dismissal was filed by dela Cruz, and it was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter as well as the NLRC. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC finding that the Bacolor-Dalisay did not comply with the guidelines for the dismissal of an employee. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner, Bacolod-Talisay observed due process in dismissing Romeo dela Cruz HELD: The Court of Appeals correctly held though that Bacolod-Talisay did not comply with the proper procedure in dismissing respondent. In other words, Bacolod-Talisay failed to afford dela Cruz due process by failing to comply with the twin notice requirement in dismissing him, viz: 1) a first notice to apprise him of his fault, and 2) a second notice to him that his employment is being terminated. The letter dated June 3, 1997 sent to dela Cruz was a letter of suspension. It did not comply with the required first notice, the purpose of which is to apprise the employee of the cause for termination and to give him reasonable opportunity to explain his side. In fine, while the dismissal of dela Cruz was for a just cause, the procedure in effecting the same was not observed.

2

BILFLEX PHIL. INC. LABOR UNION et al. v. FILFLEX MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND BILFLEX (PHILS.), INC. 511 SCRA 247 (2006), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)

INDUSTRIAL

AND

Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal str ike and any worker or union who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Biflex Philippines Inc. Labor Union and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Labor Union are the respective collective bargaining agents of the employees of the sister companies Biflex and Filflex which are engaged in the garment business. They are situated in one big compound and they have a common entrance. On October 24, 1990, the labor sector staged a welga ng bayan to protest against oil price hike; the unions staged a work stoppage which lasted for several days, prompting the companies to file a petition to declare the work stoppage illegal for failure to comply with procedural requirements. The Labor Arbiter held that the strike is illegal and declared the officers of the union to have lost their employment status. ISSUE: Whether or not the staged strike is illegal and a ground for the lost of employment status of the union officers HELD: Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code states that any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike and in this case, the strike is declared illegal by the court because the means employed by the union are illegal. Here, the unions blocked the egress and ingress of the company premises thus, a violation of Article 264 (e) of the Labor Code which would affect the strike as illegal even if assuming arguendo that the unions had complied with legal formalities and thus, the termination of the employees was valid. The court said that the legality of a strike is determined not only by compliance with its legal formalities but also by means by which it is carried out. CABALEN MANAGEMENT CO., INC., et al. v. JESUS P. QUIAMBAO, et al. 528 SCRA 153 (2007), SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) It is a well-established rule that the employer has the burden of proving a valid dismissal of an employee, for which it must be for a just or authorized cause and with due process. Jesus Quiambao, et al. were charged of tip pocketing and swapping of dining order slips with bar order slips, among others. They were dismissed from employment due to said acts. They filed a case against Cabalen Management Co., Inc. (Cabalen) for illegal dismissal but the decision of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission was in favor of Cabalen. Quiambao, et al. elevated the case to the Court of Appeals and the CA ruled otherwise. Cabalen sought to set aside the decision of the CA which reversed the earlier rulings provided for by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. They also questioned the Resolution given by CA which denied their Motion for Reconsideration. The assailed CA decision held that except for respondents Vizier Inocencio and Vincent Edward Mapa whose petitions were dismissed pursuant to Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of the Rules of Court and Section 4 (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, herein Quiambao, et al. were illegally dismissed from their employment. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, hence, Cabalen·s Motion for Reconsideration became subject of this Resolution. To the Motion, Quiambao, et al. filed their Opposition.

3

ISSUES: Whether or not Quiambao, et al. were illegally dismissed HELD: It is a well-established rule that the employer has the burden of proving a valid dismissal of an employee, for which two requisites must concur: (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in the Labor Code; and (b) the employee must be accorded due process, basic of which is the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. To establish a just or authorized cause for dismissal, substantial evidence or "such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion" is required. Further required is that an employee sought to be dismissed must be served two written notices before the termination of his employment. The first notice must appraise him of the particular acts or omissions upon which his dismissal is grounded; the second, to inform him of the employer·s decision to terminate his employment. While the failure of the employer to comply with these notice requirements does not make the dismissal illegal as long as a just or authorized cause has been proved, it renders the employer liable for payment of damages because of the violation of the worker·s right to statutory due process. In the instant case, only photocopies of the statements of Balen and Malana form part of the records despite Cabalen·s reliance thereon to prove respondents· purported transgressions. Jarcia Machine Shop and Auto Supply, Inc. v. NLRC held that the unsigned photocopies of daily time records (DTRs), which were presented by the therein employer to show that its employee was neglectful of his duties, were of "doubtful or dubious probative value." Cabalen, et al. did not even heed their own procedures on disciplinary actions. The only facts extant in the records are that respondents were issued above-said Corrective Action Report (CARE) Forms asking them to explain their alleged infractions within 48 hours; and they subsequently received notices of dismissal after they submitted their written explanations. There is, however, nothing to show that before their dismissal, Quimbao, et al. were informed of their immediate supervisors· decision to terminate their services, or that they were thereafter invited to an administrative investigation before the HRD manager or officer who is tasked to conduct the investigation in the presence of the employees· immediate supervisor/s and the witnesses, if necessary, as provided under Section IV of the company·s Code of Conduct. No record of any administrative investigation proceeding, which under the company·s rules was to be "minuted," had also been presented. Hence, only Cabalen·s allegation that the statements of the witnesses were taken as part of the administrative investigation is before this Court. Allegations without proof do not deserve consideration. Finally, on the dismissal of Quiambao allegedly on the ground of business losses, it was incumbent upon Cabe to len, et al. to prove it by substantial evidence. It did not, however. In fact, Quiambao presented documents to disprove the validity of his retrenchment on that ground. For petitioners· failure to discharge its burden then, this Court is constrained to hold that Quiambao·s dismissal was not valid. CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. v. CARLOS ANTONIO BALAGOT 513 SCRA 672 (2007), SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.) Double job per se is not illegal according to Labor Code. Capitol Wireless, Inc. (Capwire) hired Carlos Antonio Balagot (Balagot) as collector on September 16, 1987. Carlos is required to work outside the office and Capwire assigned to him a motorcycle as a service vehicle, for which it shouldered expenses for gasoline and maintenance. Balagot was discovered to have been rendering services to China Bank and that since 1992, Carlos had been concurrently employed with Contractual Concepts, Inc. (CCI), a local manpower company, which assigned him to render messengerial services to China Bank in the same year.

4

Capwire terminated his services on the ground of grave misconduct and willful breach of trust and confidence. Capwire contends that the time of work of Balagot to other companies overlaps with his work at Capwire. Balagot admitted the charge but he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Capwire and its President Epifanio Marquez. ISSUE: Whether or not Balagot was illegally dismissed HELD: Verily, jurisprudence recognizes as a valid ground for dismissal of an employee·s unauthorized use of company time. And from the evidence presented, Balagot used the company vehicle in pursuing his own interests, on company time and deviating from his authorized route without permission. Capwire has all the right and reason to cry foul as this is a clear case of moonlighting and using the company·s time, money, and equipment to render service to another company. The court said that there is no denying that taking on double job per se is not illegal according to the Labor Code, as extra income would go a long way for an ordinary worker like Balagot. The only limitation is where one job overlaps with the other in terms of time and/or poses a clear case of conflict of interest as to the nature of business of complainant·s two employers. The contention of Balagot that he is working for China Bank after 5:00 pm is untenable because he was sighted by the HR director within the premises of the bank at 3:35 pm and as general knowledge, the banking industry follows the ordinary working hours from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and a bank has no use for an employee who can only be of service to it after 5:00 pm. CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND/OR EDWIN CHUA v. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA SA CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 513 SCRA 621 (2007), SECOND DIVISION, (Carpio Morales, J.) A union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and a worker who knowingly participates in the commission of an illegal strike are deemed to have lost their employment st atus. Buklod ng Manggagawa sa Chuayuco Steel Manufacturing Corporation (the union), a legitimate labor organization, is the recognized bargaining agent of Chuayuco Steel Manufacturing Corporation (the corporation) of which its co-petitioner Edwin Chua is the President. In the election of the union officers, Camilo Lenizo (Lenizo) emerged as President. The corporation however refused to recognize the newly elected officers for the reason that there is an intra-union conflict between the factions of Lenizo and Romeo Ibanez, the former acting union president. The union staged a strike which causes illegal acts that intimidated and harassed the corporation and nonstriking employees. The strikers use physical violence and harass those employees who are not on their side by shouting and threatening them not to go to work anymore. The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and thus, some of the members who participated in the mass action lost their employment status. ISSUE: Whether or not some of the employees who participated in the strike should be reinstated without loss of seniority rights HELD: Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code states that any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Thus, a union officer may be declared to have lost his employment status if he knowingly participates in an illegal strike and in this case, the strike is declared illegal by the court because the means employed by the union are illegal.

5

nor offer any substantiation for including it to be among her actual damages. the NLRC granted Paragas· Motion. any mention of the Provident Fund therein would fail to adhere to the above-ruling in Mañebo. gross and habitual neglect of duties and gross inefficiency. Paragas made no attempt to define what this "Provident A & C" was. She did not even hint how "Provident A & C" had a bearing on retirement benefits. the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the challenged NLRC Resolution." but the same may not be interpreted so broadly as to include even those which are not warranted by the factual premises alleged by a party.A. v.) The general prayer of ´other reliefsµ is applicable only to such other reliefs warranted by law and facts. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with the modification that Paragas should be paid separation pay as a form of equitable relief in view of her length of service with Citibank. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROSITA TAN PARAGAS 563 SCRA 87 (2008). evidence. Paragas filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the NLRC Resolution.43. Her "Notice of Appeal and Appeal Memorandum" was filed after she had already submitted her position paper. In any event. SECOND DIVISION.335. Paragas. She was terminated by Citibank for serious misconduct. She no longer challenged her dismissal on the ground of work inefficiency. could have easily claimed such benefits as an alternative relief. The said manual provides that an employee discharged for reasons other the misconduct will be paid a percentage of her share in the Fund. Thus. Rosita Tan Paragas (Paragas) worked as a filing clerk of Citibank.CITIBANK N.086. Thus. among the actual damages that she was allegedly suffering from her continued severance from employment. Finding that Paragas· dismissal was for causes other than misconduct. N. there was only the mere mention of "Provident A & C. (Citibank) for eighteen (18) years. Thus the January 24. Paragas justifies her failure to claim for retirement benefits before the labor arbiter by alleging that it would be inconsistent with her prayer for reinstatement. finding that the dismissal on the ground of work inefficiency was valid. (Carpio Morales. As to Paragas· position paper." Paragas· assertion that she mentioned the matter regarding the Provident Fund even prior to her Motion for Partial Reconsideration ³ on page 14 of her position paper and again on pages 2 and 7 of her "Notice of Appeal and Appeal Memorandum" ³ is unavailing. willful disobedience. 6 . ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the NLRC·s decision despite the latter·s lack of authority to pass upon and resolve issues and grant claims not pleaded and proved before the Labor Arbiter HELD: Paragas indeed prayed for "other just and equitable relief. such reference was too vague to be a basis for any court or administrative body to grant her retirement benefits. and causes of action should already be proffered in the position papers and the supporting documents thereto. not in any later pleading. but prayed that Citibank be ordered to pay her the Provident Fund benefits under its retirement plan for which she claimed to be qualified pursuant to Citibank·s Working Together Manual. Paragas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which was dismissed for lack of merit. 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals correctly stated: "It has been ruled in this jurisdiction that the general prayer for 'other reliefs' is applicable to such other reliefs which are warranted by the law and facts alleged by the respondent in her basic pleadings and not on a newly created issue." with the corresponding amount of P1. On appeal. J.A. Paragas is not entitled to retirement benefits as this Court finds that she was validly dismissed for serious misconduct and not merely for work inefficiency. the thrust of which was precisely that all facts. while Paragas did refer to the Provident Fund in her position paper. however.

received the same monthly salary for the year 1997 and 1998. DYNO-NOBEL started its Salary Scaling Program which was intended to structure and align the salary scales of its employees. for the year 1997. v. contending that he is entitled to a mandated increase of P1.050 was added to the salary of each of the three. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. In its reply. There is every reason to uphold the Program. to uphold the claim of Ausejo that he is entitled to the [P]1. SECOND DIVISION (CARPIO MORALES. INC. As per company and union regulations Ausejo ceased to be a member of the rank and file union and joined the DWPI Supervisory Union (DWPSU). and. Having joined the DWPI Union (DWPIU) of the rank and file.) When a Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for a mandated increase in salary.150 under the CBA forged by DWPIU was already integrated into the salary of Ausejo when he assumed the position of General Stores Supervisor HELD: An examination of Ausejo·s Position Paper shows that he. in accordance with the 1996 CBA. Inc. an increase of P1. Clearly. to thereby amount to a total salary. the employer must show and prove that there was lack of available posts. the Salary Scaling Program implemented by DYNO-NOBEL was primarily intended "to restructure and align the salary scales of the employees on the basis of fairness and reasonable classification of jobs. On appeal. 7 . he was told by the detachment commander not to report for duty as instructed by the head office. considering the closeness in the time between the implementation of the Salary Scaling Program and the execution of the CBA ³ a difference of eighteen days ³ the negotiating panel of the Union would not have known the rather substantial benefits and advantages accruing to the Supervisors under the Salary Scaling Program. Inc. The labor arbiter found that Mirando was illegally dismissed. DWPI SUPERVISORY UNION 535 SCRA 466 (2007). he would render voluntary resignation. v. EAGLE STAR SECURITY SERVICES.00 mandated increase for 1996 upon his appointment. Ausejo and DWPIU invoked the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Ausejo was evaluated to have no increase as per union regulations. It is hard to believe that. DYNO-NOBEL denied the motion contending that Ausejo is not anymore a member of the rank and file union. MIRANDO 594 SCRA 450 (2009). (Eagle Star) as a security guard. he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Eagle Star before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). J. On appeals. Bonifacio Mirando was hired by Eagle Star Security Services. which was voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. When he reported for work. the CA affirmed the judgment of the NLRC. the detachment commander reported that Mirando pulled out his uniform and that according to him. Eagle Star alleged that Mirando went on absence without official leave (AWOL) and had not thereafter reported for work drawing it to send him a notice to explain his absence but Mirando failed to respond.DYNO NOBEL PHILIPPINES. Logically. Mirando called the head office and was told that he was removed from duty by Eagle Star·s operations manager Ernesto Agodilla. Ausejo was then promoted to the position of General Stores Supervisor. BONOFACIO L. the same shall be complied with. As Mirando was thereafter no longer asked to report for duty. ISSUES: Whether or not the mandated increase of P1. (DYNO-NOBEL) as a Store Clerk. 1996. At the same time. his salary was increased by P500 per month effective January 1. Ausejo and his former union filed a request for increase in salary to DYNO-NOBEL.150. Edgar Ausejo (Ausejo) was hired by Dyno Noble Philippines. It further alleged that in a Memorandum sent to Agodilla. DYNO-NOBEL also contended that the increase in salary of Ausejo was reflected in his higher salary as a General Stores Supervisor. J.) For ´off-detailµ to be valid. the NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter·s decision. The purpose of the Salary Scaling Program was intended to structure the salary scales of the employees on the basis of fairness and reasonable classification of jobs. just like the two other supervisors.150. INC.

Abel appealed to the Court of Appeals via certiorari which dismissed the motion. to be a valid ground for dismissal. the period of time a security guard is made to wait until he is transferred or assigned to a new post or client. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. to replace Mirando with another. where Mirando was last posted and which continued to hire Eagle Star·s services. Abel·s failure to perform his duty of inspecting ANSECA·s operations and vacillation on certain matters during the company investigation. accusations. following Art. Abel. Hence.ISSUES: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding the dismissal illegal HELD: The persistence of Mirando to resume his duties.) Loss of trust and confidence . this petition. Eagle Star suddenly prevented him from reporting on his tour of duty at the bank on December 15. and that he did not act on Lupega·s report concerning certain irregularities. 286 of the Labor Code. Eagle Star argues that Mirando was on temporary off-detail. was implicated in an irregularity occurring in the subsidence area of Philex·s mine site. such cases should be resolved in favor of labor pursuant to the social justice policy of labor laws and the Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Abel is valid HELD: The law mandates that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests with the employer. He found that Philex failed to prove by substantial evidence the alleged fraud committed by Abel. and conclusions of employers do not provide legal justification for dismissing employees. illegal. and was meted out the penalty of dismissal from employment. On the charge of gross negligence. ABEL v. Failure to discharge this evidentiary burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and. Philex found Abel guilty of (1) fraud resulting in loss of trust and confidence and (2) gross neglect of duty. the Labor Arbiter held that no negligence was present as Philex itself admitted that Abel reported the underloading to Tabogader. must be based on willful breach of trust and must be founded on clearly established facts. and since Eagle Star·s business is primarily dependent on contracts entered into with third parties. 2001 and had not thereafter asked him to report for duty. The Labor Arbiter ruled that Abel was dismissed illegally. there is no showing that there was lack of available posts at Eagle Star·s clients or that there was a request from the client-bank. an employee of the Philex Mining Corporation. In the present case. J. should dissipate any doubt that he did not abandon his job. 8 . Unsubstantiated suspicions. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION 594 SCRA 683 (2009). Eagle Star·s citation of Article 286 of the Labor Code is misplaced. among other things. who was then in charge of the subsidence area where the alleged anomaly was happening. The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter finding that Abel was guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty as he approved the operations even with the gross underloading. Abel thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) with claims for annual vacation leave pay. ABELARDO P. the temporary off-detail of Mirando does not amount to dismissal as long as the period does not exceed 6 months. therefore. not to mention his immediate filing of the illegal dismissal complaint. Clutching at straws. constituted sufficient basis for Philex·s loss of trust and confidence. explaining that the suggestively incriminating telephone conversations would not suffice to lay the basis for Philex·s loss of trust and confidence. In case of doubt. Abelardo P. An investigation was promptly launched by the corporation·s officers by conducting several fact-finding meetings.

unfair labor practice. it must be proven that the losses incurred are substantial and actual or reasonably imminent. Philex Mining Corporation·s evidence against Abel fails to meet this standard.) The court cannot interfere with management·s prerogative to close or cease its business operation just because the business i s not suffering from any loss or because of the desire to provide the worke rs continued employment. As in the case of retrenchment. it does not obligate the employer for the payment thereof if there is closure of business due to serious losses. must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. THIRD DIVISION. While the Labor Code provides for the payment of separation package in case of retrenchment to prevent losses. however. (La Tasca). (Carpio Morales. et al. Inc. the management decided to transfer the operation of the department to La Tasca Restaurant Inc. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. The closure of operation of an establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses includes both the complete cessation of operations and the cessation of only part of a company·s activities. The Labor Arbiter correctly found that the alleged telephone conversations between Abel and Didith Caballero of ANSECA would not suffice to lay the basis for Philex Mining Corporation·s loss of trust and confidence in Abel. no law can compel anybody to continue the same. to be a valid cause for dismissal. Petitioner Alabang Country Club. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decisions of the LA and NLRC. and that the condition of the company is not likely to improve in the near future. Loss of trust and confidence. such as to minimize expenses and reduce capitalization. J.The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence. The private respondent Alabang Country Club Independent Employees Union (Union) filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal. 9 . Consequently. It would be stretching the intent and spirit of the law if a court interferes with management·s prerogative to close or cease its business operations just because the business is not suffering from any loss or because of the desire to provide the workers continued employment. 466 SCRA 329 (2005). ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB. an employer can lawfully close shop anytime. The basis for the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary. v. The second requisite is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. ISSUE: Whether or not the ACCI can terminate its business operation HELD: One of the prerogatives of management is the decision to close the entire establishment or to close or abolish a department or section thereof for economic reasons. that the same increased through a period of time. the Court must first determine if Abel holds such a position. Irene found out that the business had been incurring substantial losses. ACCI then sent its F & B Department employees individual letters informing them that their services were being terminated and that they would receive separation pay. et al. regularization and damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against ACCI. Verily. (ACCI) requested its Internal Auditor Irene Campos-Ugalde to conduct a study on the profitability of its Food and Beverage Department (F & B Department). The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal which was upheld by the NLRC. for the closure of a business or a department due to serious business losses to be regarded as an authorized cause for terminating employees. Just as no law forces anyone to go into business. For any bona fide reason.

failed to proffer. et al. first by the Labor Arbiter. however. (2) no undue delay or prejudice would result from their intervention since their Complaint-inIntervention with Motion for Intervention was filed while the Labor Arbiter was still hearing the case and before any decision thereon was rendered. There must be clear and convincing evidence of fraud or collusion or lack of good faith independently of the dismissal. Upon the request of APCWU to compute the actual monthly increase in the employee·s salary by multiplying the mandated increase by 365 days and dividing by 12 months. instead of 250 days. stress that they have complied with the requisites for intervention because (1) they are the ones who stand to gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of any judgment that may be rendered in this case. ACEDERA. Acedera et al. ordinarily. and (3) it was not possible for them to file a separate case as they would be guilty of forum shopping because the only forum available for them was the Labor Arbiter. however. cite the dismissal of the case filed by ICTSI. It was raised only in petitioners-appellants· reply to ICTSI·s comment in the petition at bar. Acedera et al. This authority includes the power to represent its members for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the CBA. ICTSI entered into a retrenchment program which prompted APCWU to file a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for ICTSI·s use of 365 days. Jerry Acedera. That APCWU acted in a representative capacity "for and in behalf of its Union members and other employees similarly situated. This. failed to consider. (APCWU-ICTSI). Acedera et al. a person whose interests are already represented will not be permitted to do the same except when there is a suggestion of fraud or collusion or that the representative will not act in good faith for the protection of all interests represented by him. v. A labor union is one such party authorized to represent its members under Article 242(a) of the Labor Code which provides that a union may act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective bargaining. The dismissal of the case does not. While a party acting in a representative capacity. Acedera et al. Acedera et al. 395 SCRA 103 (2003). ICTSI entered into a five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with APCWU which reduced the employees· work days from 304 to 250 days a year. likewise express their fear that APCWU would not prosecute the case diligently because of its "sweetheart relationship" with ICTSI. the last pleading 10 . ISSUE: Whether or not Acedera et al. ICTSI stopped using 304 days as divisor and sta rted using 365 days to determine the daily wage. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES INC. are employees of International Container Terminal Services. have no legal right to intervene in the case as their intervention was a superfluity HELD: Acedera et al. a duly registered labor organization. Later on. the rule on representation.) Ordinarily. On appeal. et al. J. Acedera et al. in addition to the rule on intervention. (ICTSI) and are members of Associated Port Checkers & Workers Union-International Container Terminal Services. the title of the case filed by it at the Labor Arbiter·s Office so expressly states. as divisor in the computation of wages. by itself show the existence of fraud or collusion or a lack of good faith on the part of APCWU. however. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed LA·s decision. filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA) which was dismissed.. to support this alleged relationship which allegation surfaces as a mere afterthought because it was never raised early on.JERRY E. filed a Motion to Intervene which was denied by the LA. may be permitted to intervene in a case. a person whose interests are already represented will not be permitted to do the same except when there is a sugg estion of fraud or collusion or that the representative will not act in good faith. Inc. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. Inc. The Wage Board decreed wage increases in NCR which affected ICTSI. There is nothing on record. and later by the Court of Appeals. such as a union.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint which was upheld by the NLRC. a cashier. the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision and ordered her reinstatement with full payment of back wages and without loss of seniority rights. as what petitioners-appellants proffer. the branch head of the Solidbank-Gorordo Branch who personally picked up the deposits from Loalde Ayala on May 13 and 14. To reiterate. 11 . do not suffice. non-payment of 13th month pay and damages. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales.) Under the control test. if the need arises. /LOALDE BOUTIQUE v. contrary to its policy. 1997 indicating her duties and responsibilities which do not include handling cash collection of sales and making deposits with the bank does not lie. The CA held Tomboc was illegally dismissed and was denied of due process as she was not afforded a chance to refute the charge of misappropriation against her. It must be based on facts borne on record. Rabino on the ground of breach of contract of employment. 2001 or more than 42 months after petitioners appellants filed their Complaint-in-Intervention with Motion to Intervene with the Labor Arbiter. she filed an action before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Infinite Loop and its General Manager/President/co-petitioner Edwin R. underpayment of wages. INC. 1997 was corroborated by Kay. At any rate./Loalde Boutique on February 29.. Jinky and some of the affiants stated in their affidavits that Tomboc interfered with cashiering tasks.. Aldeguer and Co. Cebu City. J. On appeal. in violation of company policy CORAZON ALMIREZ v. an employer -employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved. 1999 with a guaranty of 12 continuous months of service or until a mutually agreed date. however. ALDEGUER & CO../Loalde Boutique has shown just cause for the termination of Tomboc·s employment under Art. Petitioner Corazon Almirez was hired by respondent Infinite Loop Technology Corporation (Infinite Loop) to be a Refinery Senior Process Design Engineer for a specific project starting October 18. cash sales for the day were on several occasions not deposited on the next banking day. which was filed on June 20. Tomboc subsequently filed a complaint in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal. INFINITE LOOP TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION. 282 of the Labor Code on the ground of fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative.. Inc. for a member of a class to be permitted to intervene in a representative action. Consequently. Almirez was later on suspended. but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. Inc. Hence. Loalde Boutique concluded that Tomboc m isappropriated certain amount which is a just cause for termination. illegal salary deductions. 481 SCRA 364 (2006). fraud or collusion or lack of good faith on the part of the representative must be proven. Mere assertions. ISSUES: Whether or not the termination of Tomboc was for just cause HELD: Aldeguer and Co. 1997. Inc. Tombo was notified of the termination of her services. The claim of Jinky. Inc.. It has been established that while a boutique-in-charge is ordinarily not allowed to handle cashiering./Loalde Boutique in fact presented deposit slips showing that. Tomboc·s contention that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ignored the Memorandum issued by Aldeguer and Co. However. Petitioner Aldeguer and Co. et al. HONEYLINE TOMBOC 560 SCRA 49 (2008).) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative is a ju st cause for his dismissal from employment. J.submitted to this Court. After conducting an audit of sales./Loalde Boutique promoted respondent Honeyline Tomboc (Tomboc) as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of its Loalde Ayala Boutique (Loalde Ayala) in the Ayala Center. she may do so. in her affidavit that it was Tomboc who turned over the deposits to the bank representative on May 13.

is a seaman engaged by Arpaphil Shipping Corporation to work under an 11 -month contract of employment for co-respondent Magna Marine Inc. Ponciano Aya-ay Jr. Philhealth contributions and withholding tax. that for the period of January 16-31.Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled that there is an existing employer-employee relationship between Almirez and Infinite Loop since the latter exercises control over the means and methods used by Almirez in the performance of her duties.) Death benefits shall be awarded only when the cause of death of the employee was proved by substantial evid ence to be reasonably connected with his work or his working conditions. Such pay slip cannot prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. the last one. Aya-ay met an eye injury thereby requiring him to undergo a corneal transplant. The deduction from Almirez· remuneration of amounts representing SSS premiums. Under the control test. revisions and improvement of process design on a regular basis as required by company management team" does not "show that the company·s management team exercises control over the means and methods in the performance of her duties as Refinery Process Design Engineer. 12 . is bereft of a showing of power of control. an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved. J. The services to be performed by her specified what she needed to achieve but not on how she was to go about it. jurisprudence has invariably applied the four-fold test." Having hired Almirez· professional services on account of her "expertise and qualifications" as Almirez herself proffers in her Position Paper. 481 SCRA 282 (2006). ARPAPHIL SHIPPING CORP. there is no showing of a power of control over petitioner. On board the vessel and while performing his work.. Contrary to the finding of the Labor Arbiter. 2000. SR. As for the designation of the payments to Almirez as "salaries. the company naturally expected to be updated regularly of her "work progress. 6 of the "Scope of [Almirez·] Professional Services" requiring her to "[m]ake reports and recommendations to the company management team regarding work progress. but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end. which is the law between the parties. on the project for which she was specifically hired. "Salary" is a general term defined as "a remuneration for services given. Aya-ay was repatriated to Manila. Aya-ay died. Of these four. the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence of an employer-employee relationship. was made in the only pay slip issued to Almirez. the other amounts of remuneration having been documented by cash vouchers. SPOUSES PONCIANO AYA-AY. Upon mutual consent of Magna Marine and Aya-ay. Even Almirez concedes rendering service "based on the contract. to wit: (1) the manner of selection and engagement. the so called "control test" is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. The Court of Appeals ruled that there was no existing employer-employee relationship between the parties since Almirez was hired to render her professional service only for a specific project. (3) the presence or absence of the power of dismissal. together with its attachments. as affirmed by the NLRC. and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control." It is the above-quoted contract of engagement of services-letter dated September 30. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. ISSUE: Whether or not there is employee-employer relationship between Almirez and Infinite Loop HELD: To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship. 1999. and CLEMENCIA AYA-AY v. and MAGNA MARINE INC. paragraph No. as reflected earlier." which." it is not determinative of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. From the earlier-quoted scope of Almirez· professional services." if any. (2) the payment of wages. While waiting for an eye donor.

the Human Resource Department of SICI proceeded with their investigation and found all the employees guilty and dismissed them for loss of confidence and serious misconduct. crucial to determine whether Aya-ay died as a result of. ISSUE: Whether or not the heirs of Aya-ay are entitled to claim death benefits under POEA Standard Employment Contract HELD: Part II. hence. Nos. the eye injury he suffered during the term of his employment. Thinking that Abordo had already forgiven them. Both the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) denied their claims. AND/OR ERNESTO ECHAUS 520 SCRA 644 (2007). reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision and declared valid the termination of Arlyn·s services on the grounds of loss of trust and confidence and dishonesty. he was no longer an employee when he died on December 1. J. while not of similar rank. It is. of his death for which compensation is sought. 1995 repatriated on account of his eye injury. Abordo (Abordo). Arlyn Bago (Bago) and five other employees were dismissed by Celia P. Bago filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. At all events. BAGO v. She contended that there was no due process in the investigation and that dismissal is a severe penalty for the offenses charged.The death certificate indicates that the immediate cause of his death is cerebro-vascular accident (CVA) commonly known as stroke. Thus his employment had been effectively terminated on that particular date. head of the Tuguegarao Branch of Standard Insurance Company Incorporated (SICI) for manipulating the company funds and spreading damaging rumors. therefore. parents of Aya-ay. 1995. If the injury is the proximate cause. Section C. and Clemencia Aya-ay. Petitioners Ponciano Aya-ay Sr.) As a general rule. the employees did not respond to the memo. the auditor of the company. this appeal. or (c) his working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease for which he died. death compensation benefits cannot be awarded. INC. Aya-ay ceased to be an employee on September 26. now claims for death compensation benefits from Arpaphil and Magna Marine. Abordo issued a memo to the employees requiring an explanation for the charges. recovery may be had for said death. Unless there is substantial evidence showing that: (a) the cause of Aya-ay·s death was reasonably connected with his work. or at least increased the risk. perform functions which by their nature require the employer·s full trust and confidenc e. which the latter rejected. Bago. Upon mutual consent of Aya-ay and Arpaphil and Magna Marine. or (b) the sickness/ailment for which he died is an accepted occupational disease. and the five other employees apologized for spreading the rumors. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and STANDARD INSURANCE CO. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio-Morales. Hence. or in relation to. he was on July 5. ARLYN D. Not receiving any reply. under the October 15. ISSUE: Whether or not Bago was illegally dismissed by Standard Insurance Company Incorporated 13 . 1995. 1994 Contract of Employment. employers are given a wide latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who. 1 and 3 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract Governing the Employment of All Filipino Seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels provide. The Labor Arbiter found that Bago was illegally dismissed but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). among other things that compensation and benefits may be availed of by the worker provided he/she dies during the term of the contract or he/she has died as a result of injury or illness during the term of the employment.

CMC·s medical director issued a Memorandum to Dr. Ronaldo thus amended his complaint to illegal dismissal. Even assuming that Arlyn may be considered a rank and file employee. and she herself admitted her involvement. 14 . J. Merceditha was no longer given any work assignments. Dr. the cashier identified her as part of the scheme. Afterwards. 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. CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER v. as determined by petitioner through its medical director. Dr. Consequently. After the incident involving her husband. received a notice of termination indicating his failure to return for work. The CMC contends that the doctors-spouses are not employees of the same. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. Dr. the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued a return to work order. Merceditha) as part of its team of resident physicians. such as when the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee concerned is responsible for the purported misconduct. employers are allowed a wide latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who. Merceditha meanwhile filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal. Not only was her participation established by the internal audit conducted. Ronaldo and a fellow employee discussing the low admission in the hospital. 571 SCRA 585 (2008). Dr. Ronaldo after a resident physician overheard Dr. among others. the element of control is absent. identification cards and work schedules. engaged the services of medical doctors-spouses Ronaldo Lanzanas (Dr. Subsequently. and is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof. respectively before the National Labor Relations Commission Regional Arbitration Board (NLRC-RAB). which consisted of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight hours each week and which were strictly to be observed under pain of administrative sanctions. This must be distinguished from the case of ordinary rank-and-file employees. on the other hand. It is sufficient that there is some basis for loss of confidence. Petitioner Calamba Medical Center (CMC). Ronaldo. whose termination on the basis of these same grounds requires a higher proof of involvement in the events in question.) An employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the deta ils of the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task.et al. and the nature of his participation therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. Ronaldo) and Merceditha Lanzanas (Dr. They were likewise enrolled in the Social Security System (SSS). As priorly stated. 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. mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer will not suffice. Ronaldo and Dr. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. and were paid a monthly retainer. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. ISSUES: Whether or not an employee-employer relationship does not exist between Calamba Medical Center and the doctors-spouses Lanzanas HELD: Under the control test. They were given. so that they cannot be illegally dismissed. the rank and file employees union of Calamba Medical Center went on a strike.HELD: As a general rule. while not of similar rank. the spouses-doctors maintained specific work-schedules. perform functions which by their nature require the employer·s full trust and confidence. sufficient evidence of her involvement in the dishonest scheme of SICI·s accountant and cashier who were also charged and found guilty exists.

On appeal. this petition. J. CLARION PRINTING HOUSE. unless there is a training agreement between them. and a memorandum was given to employees. and the training program is duly accredited or approved by the appropriate government agency. Finally. And if the spouses-doctors were not CMC·s employees. NLRC rendered its decision in favor of Miclat and found that she was illegally dismissed. It bears noting at this juncture that mandatory coverage under the SSS Law is premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. charge nurses and orderlies. there was no notice that was given to her. and offenses against persons. Ronaldo·s employment status. EYCO subsequently filed a petition for petition for suspension of payment as well as an appointment of a rehabilitation receivership committee before SEC on the ground that they are suffering financial difficulty. Rule X of Book III of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code. assigned at the emergency rooms and ward sections. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION et al. For control test to apply.[35] except in cases of compulsory coverage of the self-employed. a retrenchment occurred. the CMC itself provided incontrovertible proof of the employment status of respondents. 1998 memorandum explicitly stating that respondent is employ ed in it and of the subsequent termination letter indicating Dr. namely. thus terminating Miclat. Clarion contends that they are not liable for retrenching some employees because EYCO is being placed under receivership. it was not done in a proper manner. hence they substantially complied with the notice requirement. With respect to spouses-doctors sharing in some hospital fees. Hence. spouses-doctors· work is monitored through its nursing supervisors. Miclat contends that assuming her termination is necessary. or any department or ward for that matter.That CMC exercised control over spouses-doctors gains light from the undisputed fact that in the emergency room. More importantly. 461 SCRA 272 (2005). the Court of Appeals held that Clarion failed to prove its ground for retrenchment as well as compliance with the mandated procedure. Conversely. a company owned by EYCO Group of Companies (EYCO) hired Michelle Miclat (Miclat) as marketing assistant on a probationary basis. Moreover. The spouses-doctors were in fact made subject to petitioner-hospital·s Code of Ethics. the provisions of which cover administrative and disciplinary measures on negligence of duties. property and the hospital·s interest. under Section 15. it enrolled respondents in the SSS and Medicare (Philhealth) program. INC.) Retrenchment is a valid ground for the dismissal of an employee. Issue: Whether or not Miclat was illegally dismissed 15 . the identification cards it issued them. personnel conduct and behavior. the payslips and BIR W-2 (now 2316) Forms which reflect their status as employees. In the spouses-doctors· case. the operating room. an employeremployee relationship exists between the resident physicians and the training hospitals. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. On the other hand. They were considered non-training general practitioners. Without the approval or consent of CMC or its medical director. During that time. Pursuant to this. this scheme does not sever the employment tie between them and CMC 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. et al. It further ruled that Miclat should be reinstated and paid backwages. she was not informed of the standards that she should meet to qualify as a regular employee. Clarion Printing House (Clarion). it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee. and the classification as salary of their remuneration. Miclat filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. no operations can be undertaken in those areas. it being enough that it has the right to wield the power. they were not undergoing any specialization training. v. how does it account for its issuance of the earlierquoted March 7. It would be preposterous for an employer to report certain persons as employees and pay their SSS premiums as well as their wages if they are not its employees.

or the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled. The CA set aside the NLRC decision and held that petitioners Lacuata and dela Cruz were validly dismissed.Held: It is likewise well-settled that for retrenchment to be justified. The respondent Coca-Cola was ordered to reinstate dela Cruz and pay both petitioners dela Cruz and Lacuata their respective back wages. a salesman of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. No. are proven by sufficient and convincing evidence. was suffering business reverses justifying. Sales was hospitalized and was observed that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident and was included in the police blotter. (2) the losses are actual or reasonably imminent. loss. to explain why no disciplinary action be taken against them. inter alia. a company possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but "foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due" and "there is imminent danger of dissipation. 13th month pay and separation pay. . J. and thus resulting to "complications and problems . Raymund Sales. mandated by law to have regulatory functions over corporations. as quoted above. Dela Cruz was found to be illegally dismissed. Lacuata (Lacuata). any claim of actual or potential business losses must satisfy the following standards: (1) the losses are substantial and not de minimis. ISSUE: Whether or not Lacuata and dela Cruz were validly dismissed on the grounds of altering the medical certificate and police report of Sales 16 . if already incurred. among other things. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. and (4) the alleged losses. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Espina·s complaint for lack of merit. v. Petitioner Dela Cruz said that he just asked for a copy of the police report one Melvin Asuncion. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter·s decision but deleted the award of moral damages in favor of dela Cruz." That the SEC. Lacuata and dela Cruz filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal with the contention that the alleged altering of documents is work related and is a willful breach of confidence. Raul M. Coca-Cola required Sales· Supervisors John Espina. the therein enumerated "factors beyond the control and anticipation of the management" rendering it unable to meet its obligation as they fall due. to arise that would impair and affect [its] operations .D. Espina denied the fact that he altered the documents. Further investigation shows that they conspired to alter the medical certificate and the police report. appointed an interim receiver for the EYCO Group of Companies on its petition in light of. After such finding they were dismissed from employment. the appointment of a receiver or management committee by the SEC presupposes a finding that. as amended. partnerships or associations. figured an accident while driving a vehicle he was not authorized to use. the retrenchment of its employees. Lacuata was found to be at fault for doing nothing to stop Espina from obtaining false police and medical reports. Respondent Coca-Cola discovered that Sales· co-employees secured a police report and medical certificate which omitted the fact that Sales was under the influence of alcohol. respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). . wastage or destruction of assets of other properties or paralization of business operations. INC. And lastly. together with the other membercompanies of the EYCO Group of Companies. Petitioner Lacuata said that he has no participation in the alleged alteration because he only picked-up the medical certificate from the Hospital. .) Acts by employees which are inimical to the employer·s interest are deemed willful breach of the trust and confidence reposed in them. 594 SCRA 761 (2009). . Inc (Coca-Cola). ERIC DELA CRUZ et al. 902-A. Espina. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. and Eric dela Cruz (dela Cruz)." shows that CLARION. (3) the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and is likely to be effective in preventing expected losses. On appeal. From the provisions of P.

it could not be recognized as such. the striking employees resisted and some of the guards tasked to remove the barricades were injured. (MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL) v. that for loss of trust and confidence to be a ground for termination of employment. The NLRC thus issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing the strikers to immediately "cease and desist from obstructing the free ingress and egress from the Hotel premises. It modified the NLRC Resolution. The Union later notified petitioner hotel of its intention to negotiate for collective bargaining agreement (CBA). intimidation. however. The National Labour Relations Commission (NLRC) representative who conducted an ocular inspection of the Hotel premises confirmed in his Report that the strikers obstructed the free ingress to and egress from the Hotel. ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the union members is valid on the grounds of participating in an illegal strike HELD: Even if the purpose of a strike is valid. the employment of violence. Dela Cruz et al. In so doing. The union contended that the strike was premised on valid ground and that it had the capacity to negotiate the CBA as the representatives of the employees of Diamond Hotel. PHILIPPINE DIAMOND HOTEL AND RESORT. The Diamond Hotel Employee's Union (the union) filed a petition for Certification Election before the DOLE-National Capital Region (NCR) seeking certification as the exclusive bargaining representative of its members. Kimpo filed a complaint for ULP against petitioner hotel.HELD: Dela Cruz et al. On appeal. The DOLE-NCR denied said petition as it failed to comply with the legal requirements. In the meantime. MANILA DIAMOND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION 494 SCRA 195 (2006). Since there was a failure to settle the dispute regarding the bargaining capability of the union. by o rdering the reinstatement with back wages of union members. however. After several conferences. deliberately attempted to cover up the fact that Sales was under the influence of liquor at the time the accident took place. the union went on to file a notice of strike due to unfair labor pracritce (ULP) in that the hotel refused to bargain with it and the rank-and-file employees were being harassed and prevented from joining it. the National Union of Workers in the Hotel. The following day. And so is picketing or the obstruction to the free use of property or the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. contend. 17 . Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) joined the strike and openly extended its support to the union. the union suddenly went on strike. violence. The some of the entrances were blocked by the striking employees. and coercion as to constitute nuisance. the strike may still be held illegal where the means employed are illegal. they committed acts inimical to respondent·s interests. the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC Resolution dismissing the complaints of Mary Grace. it must be willful and must be connected with the employee·s work. By obtaining an altered police report and medical certificate. During the implementation of the order. The NLRC declared that the strike was illegal and that the union officers and members who participated were terminated on the grounds of participating in an illegal strike. The Human Resource Department of Diamond Hotel rejected the notice and advised the union since it was not certified by the DOLE as the exclusive bargaining agent. J. Agustin and Rowena and of the union. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. when accompanied by intimidation. restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted activities which are injurious to the rights to property renders a strike illegal.) An ordinary striking worker cannot be dismissed for mere participation in an illegal strike unless there be a proof that he committed illegal acts during a strike. INC. The union contended that their dismissal is tantamount to an unfair labour practice and union busting. Thus. They thus committed a work-related willful breach of the trust and confidence reposed in them. threats.

On appeal. The latter's alleged words: "How come you claim you know so much yet nothing ever gets done in your department?" do not jurisprudentially constitute nor clearly establish "professional harassment. Hence.) Forced resignation must be sufficiently established by substantial. reveals. that she merely "concluded" that the employees of Digitel were instructed or harassed not to testify in favor of Soriano when they failed to meet one Matet Ruiz. She produced an affidavit by one of the persons involved with Digitel stating that the employees of the company were being forced not to testify against Go and Severino. a Digitel employee "who kept avoiding to meet With such tendency to threaten resignation everytime higher management would refuse her demand to transfer subordinates who had administrative differences with her. As to the facts allegedly constituting "sexual harassment" advanced by Go and Severino. . it is found that these far out weigh the Soriano's own evidence A reading of the affidavit of the witness. thus dismissing the complaint. She alleged that her superiors are preventing her former colleagues in testifying to the sexual harassment. thus amounting to constructive dismissal. however. . Following a professional dispute against Severino and Go. Soriano filed a suit for illegal termination alleging that she was forced to resign due to professional and sexual harassment. Soriano filed a resignation letter which was accepted by her superiors.As the appellate court correctly held. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. (Digitel). Arnedo 18 . ISSUE: Whether or not the Soriano was forced to resign. DIGITEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES. conjectures. Inc. She could not satisfactorily explain her allegation that she was consistently professionally harassed by respondent Severino. although they are so detailed. MARIQUIT SORIANO 492 SCRA 704 (2006). Go and Severino provided witnesses that testified that the acts alleged by Soriano din not happen. appear incredible if not downright puny. . et al. . Mariquit Soriano (Soriano) was hired as Director of Marketing by Digitel Telecommunications Philippines. The Labor Arbiter held that Mariquit voluntarily resigned.any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during strike may be declared to have lost his employment status ." Aside from these words. An analysis of her statements shows that her own conclusion that she was being sexually and professionally harassed was on the basis of her own suppositions. v. concrete and credible evidence. who was never an employee nor present at the party of Digitel. INC. In defense. due to professional and sexual harassment. Article 264(a) of the Labor Code which provides that ". we therefore have no doubt that complainant voluntarily resigned when respondent Severino refused to heed her demand that Ms.. J. Go (Go). the NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter. after an objective analysis over their assertions as stated in their respective counter-affidavits and further considering the other supporting documents attached to the respondents' pleadings.this petition." An ordinary striking worker cannot. Soriano worked under Vice President for Business Division Eric J. HELD: Soriano's own allegation. the union officers should be dismissed for staging and participating in the illegal strike. thus be dismissed for mere participation in an illegal strike. After her resignation. and surmises. the complainant could only venture to allege instances in general and vague terms. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during a strike. Severino (Severino) and Senior Executive Vice President Johnson Robert L. unlike a union officer who may be dismissed by mere knowingly participating in an illegal strike and/or committing an illegal act during a strike. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of NLRC. following paragraph 3.

The BLR granted the Aliazas group·s motion for intervention three days before the intended date of election. DLSU-NAFTEU·s officers remained duly authorized to conduct union affairs. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (DLSU-NAFTEU) 584 SCRA 592 (2009). DLSU-NAFTEU. prayed for the award of exemplary damages. the Court finds no basis to grant the prayer for exemplary damages. It is axiomatic in labor relations that a CBA entered into by a legitimate labor organization and an employer becomes the law between the parties. and attorney·s fees. The incident prompted the Aliazas group to file an Urgent Motion for Intervention with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) of the DOLE. QUEBENGCO v. The Labor Arbiter dismissed DLSU-NAFTEU·s ULP complaint. temperate. It bears noting that at the time DLSU and Quebengco·s questioned moves were adopted. ISSUE: Whether or not DLSU and Quebengco is guilty of unfair labor practice HELD: On the other matter raised by DLSU and Quebengco ² that their acts of withholding union and agency dues and suspension of normal relations with respondent·s incumbent set of officers pending the intra -union dispute did not constitute interference. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. compliance with which is mandated by express policy of the law. DLSU-NAFTEU called for a regular election without prior notice to the DOLE and without the conduct of pre-election conference. claiming that they unduly interfered with its internal affairs and discriminated against its members. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good in addition to the moral. The Court of Appeals reversed the said Order of the NLRC with respect to the subsuming of ULP·s complaint under the certified case. however. Inductivo. temperate or compensatory damages before the Court may consider awarding exemplary damages. the Court finds for DLSU-NAFTEU.and Ms. much less an illegal one. a valid and existing CBA had been entered between the parties. nominal damages. CARMELITA I. DLSU and Quebengco·s move prompted DLSU-NAFTEU to file a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP complaint). Even with the conditions for the conduct of election imposed by the DOLE-NCR. Pending the final resolution of the intra-union dispute. No such damages were prayed for. J. a splinter group of the De La Salle University Employees Association (DLSU-NAFTEU) led by one Belen Aliazas (Aliazas group) filed a petition for conduct of elections with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). It thus behooved DLSU to observe the terms and conditions thereof bearing on union dues and representation. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY and DR. compliance with which is mandated by express policy of the law. While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved. It accordingly ordered the conduct of elections to be placed under the control and supervision of its Labor Relations Division and subject to pre-election conferences. liquidated or compensatory damages. her subordinates. We also have no doubt that such resignation does not constitute constructive dismissal. alleging that the then incumbent officers of DLSU-NAFTEU had failed to call for a regular election since 1985. hence. be transferred to other departments. at the time the NLRC Third Division Order was issued. 19 . Respecting the issue of damages. DOLE-NCR held that the holdover authority of DLSU-NAFTEU·s incumbent set of officers had been extinguished by virtue of the execution of the CBA. the ULP complaint having been. already disposed of by the Arbiter and was in fact pending appeal before the NLRC Second Division.) It is axiomatic in labor relations that a Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by a legitimate labor organization and an employer becomes the law between the parties. in its Position Paper before the Labor Arbiter. The Aliazas group requested the University to escrow all union dues/agency fees and whatever money considerations deducted from salaries of concerned co-academic personnel until such time that an election of union officials has been scheduled and subsequent elections has been held. respondent must show proof of entitlement to moral. In 2001.

) Whether or not the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over Dumalasa 2. DOMINGO SABADO S. hence. were all individually impleaded in the complaint. the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over her person regardless of the fact that there was allegedly no valid service of summons. Therefore. she appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Labor Arbiter found that the closure of the Muntinlupa office/plant was a sham. Du malasa moved for reconsideration of the appellate court·s Decision. in quasi -judicial proceedings. former employees of Helios Manufacturing Corporation (HELIOS). 20 . SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. this petition. of which she and her therein co-respondents in the subject cases were the stockholders and managers. but this was denied. in quasi-judicial proceedings. either in the main case or in the Writ. Domingo Fernandez. Dumalasa moved for reconsideration.) Whether or not Dumalasa is solidarily liable with HELIOS for the judgment award HELD: Contrary to Dumalasa·s contention. ISSUES: 1. It is undisputed that HELIOS. modified was not the Order denying the Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution. are not strictly construed. FERNANDEZ. Cavite under the new name of Pat & Suzara. that the liability is solidary. It bears noting that. Dumalasa was adequately represented in the proceedings conducted by the Labor Arbiter by the lawyer retained by HELIOS. To apply the normal precepts on corporate fiction and the technical rules on service of summons would be to overturn the bias of the Constitution and the laws in favor of labor. The appellate court reversed and set aside the NLRC Resolution.·s claim. et al. which was denied. procedural rules governing service of summons are not strictly construed. hence. (2009). her husband and three other relatives. the appellate court held that the same is a superfluity since there was no statement. Hence. HELIOS and it Board of Directors and stockholders were held liable. et al.) Procedural rules governing service of summons. non-payment of salaries and other money claims against HELIOS. Dumalasa cannot now thus question the implementation of the Writ of Execution on her on the pretext that jurisdiction was not validly acquired over her person or that HELIOS has a separate and distinct personality as a corporate entity. Dumalasa. President-General Manager of HELIOS. Respecting NLRC·s pronouncement that Dumalasa was not jointly and severally liable. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal or illegal closure of business.. The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter·s Order. et al. holding that Dumalasa is not jointly and severally liable with HELIOS for Fernandez. as HELIOS simply relocated its operations to a new plant in Carmona. was in fact heard. but the Labor Arbiter·s Decision itself. together with counsel in one such scheduled hearing and the Labor Arbiter·s consideration of their position paper in arriving at the Decision. in response to the newly-established local union. HELIOS· knowledge of the pendency thereof and its efforts to resist them are deemed to be knowledge and action of petitioner. Clearly. Taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the cases. Dumalasa is merely jointly liable for the judgment award. 593 SCRA 656. holding that what the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter furnished her with notices of the scheduled hearings and other processes. albeit the same position paper was belatedly filed. Substantial compliance therewith is sufficient. in effect.CARMEN B. it could no longer be reversed or modified. proof of which is the attendance of her husband. In the cases at bar. DY-DUMALASA v. This is an impermissible act since the Decision has become final and executor. That Dumalasa and her fellow members of the Board refused to heed the summons and avail of the opportunity to defend themselves as they instead opted to hide behind the corporate veil does not shield them from the application of labor laws. J. there being no showing that she acted in bad faith nor that HELIOS cannot pay its obligations.

The Court in fact finds that the present action is actually a last-ditch attempt on the part of Dumalasa to wriggle its way out of her share in the judgment obligation and to discuss the defenses which she failed to interpose when given the opportunity. all aspects of employment. holding that. inter alia. and without the pronouncement in the Decision that she is being held solidarily liable. the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. must.) If exercised in good faith for the purpose of advancing business interests. Subsequently Potongan did not receive his salary and he was advised to take an indefinite leave of absence. she proceeds to interpose the defenses that jurisdiction was not acquired over her person and that HELIOS has a separate juridical personality. absent a clear and convincing showing of the bad faith in effecting the closure of HELIOS that can be individually attributed to petitioner as an officer thereof." On appeal.. and that the belated filing of his complaint partakes of a "fishing expedition. Respondent Francisco Potongan (Potongan) worked for Dynamic Signmaker Outdoor Advertising Services (Corporation) as a Production Supervisor. Potangan denied all allegations. Potongan then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with NLRC against corporation. notwithstanding the finding of bad faith on the part of the management. Then Potongan was being charge by the company for the alleged burning of corporation·s main building and for the disruption of work. The union of rank-and-file employees of corporation declared a strike on the ground that the corporation replaced all its supervisors. petitioner is only jointly liable. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. The Court of Appeals (CA) however. albeit only joint. However. The scope and limits of the exercise of management prerogatives. however. The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter·s decision and directed respondent Potongan to go back to work. Even as Dumalasa avers that she is not questioning the final and executory Decision of the Labor Arbiter and admits liability. not of defeating or circumventing the rights of e mployees.On Carmen·s liability A perusal of the Labor Arbiter·s Decision readily shows that. the dispositive portion did not expressly mention the solidary liability of the officers and Board members. contending that the Labor Arbiter did not acquire jurisdiction over him because he was not even a member of the union. be balanced against the security of tenure given to labor. 21 . J. The Labor Arbiter eventually dismissed Potongan·s complaint for lack of merit. INC. she conveniently omits to mention that the same are actually conjugal property belonging to her and her husband. As for Dumalasa·s questioning the levy upon her house and lot. Potongan should have reported back to work and/or inquired into the results of the investigation of the charges against him. reversed the decision of NLRC holding that Potongan was denied due process and was dismissed without cause. including Dumalasa. FRANCISCO POTONGAN 461 SCRA 328 (2005). including the freedom to transfer and reassign employees according to the requirements of its business. Potongan then appealed. Whether petitioner is jointly or solidarily liable for the judgment obligation. v. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case on the ground that the action was barred by prior judgment regarding the strike of union. the levied property is not fully absolved from any lien except if it be shown that it is exempt from execution. still. according to its own discretion and judgment. et al. DYNAMIC SIGNMAKER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SERVICES. ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Potongan was a valid exercise of management prerogatives HELD: The Supreme Court recognizes that management has wide latitude to regulate. the managerial prerogative to transfer personnel from one area of operation to another is justified. Ineluctably.

ISSUE: Whether or not Endico was constructively dismissed HELD: Jurisprudence recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives. are subject to limitations provided by law. The law must protect not only the welfare of employees.If exercised in good faith for the purpose of advancing business interests. especially during adverse business conditions. benefits and other privileges and the action is not motivated by discrimination. but rather as a preventive measure to avoid further loss of sales and the destruction of 22 . In this case. Quantum Foods then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) who ruled in favor of Quantum Foods. management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another ² provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary. Hence. Labor laws also discourage interference with an employer·s judgment in the conduct of its business. The decision of Quantum Foods to transfer Endico pending investigation was a valid exercise of management prerogative to discipline its employees. which compelled it to streamline its operations through the reduction of the company·s contractual merchandisers to save on operation cost. to attribute good faith on the part of Dynamic. In the pursuit of its legitimate business interests. The CA concluded that Endico filed the complaint in anticipation of what he perceived to be the final outcome of the administrative investigation. while incidental to the charges against Endico. this petition. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in Endico·s favor. He was later on transferred in Cebu. Endico was immediately relieved from service. Quantum Foods Center hired Arnulfo O. ENDICO v. ARNULFO O. The Court of Appeals ruled that Quantum Foods had yet to decide on the administrative case when Endico immediately filed the complaint for constructive dismissal. was not meant as a penalty. but also the right of employers. Reassignments made by management pending investigation of violations of company policies and procedures allegedly committed by an employee fall within the ambit of management prerogative. not of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees. The Supreme Court finds it difficult. Endico thereafter filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal. the Court finds no reason to disturb the conclusion of the CA that there was no constructive dismissal. and only after the NLRC promulgated its decision of May 21. QUANTUM DISTRIBUTION CENTER 577 SCRA 299 (2009). the managerial prerogative to transfer personnel from one area of operation to another is justified. He was asked to return to work only after more than three years from the time he was instructed to go on indefinite leave during which period his salaries were withheld. This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprises effectively. For this reason. Endico (Endico) as Field Supervisor of Davao City. or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. The transfer. J. However. collective bargaining agreements. for some misfortunate events.) The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions t o the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. and general principles of fair play and justice. after fruitful years of employment. FIRST DIVISION (Carpio Morales. however. Managerial prerogatives. 1998 reversing the labor arbiter·s dismissal of his complaint. Potongan was instructed to go on indefinite leave. bad faith. Quantum Foods was adversely affected by economic slowdown. however. the Court often declines to interfere in legitimate business decisions of employers. Thereafter. he was promoted as Area Manager of Cebu. Due to Endico·s achievements and contributions to Quantum Foods. Quantum Foods appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the Labor Arbiter·s decision with modification.

illegal suspension.·s salaries renders it liable for constructive dismissal. the work reduction/rotation scheme was implemented. as found by both the labor arbiter and the NLRC and admitted by respondent itself. or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. after such incident. or when a clear discrimination. The labor arbiter found the hotel and its manager guilty of illegal dismissal. et al. What is undisputed. The appellate court reversed the NLRC decision and dismissed the petitioners· complaints. Petitioners Fe La Rosa. and illegal deductions against the hotel and its manager. and that almost immediately after the partial settlement of the said complaints. It was not designed to be the culmination of the then on -going administrative investigation against Endico. the Court finds that Quantum Foods. et al. arbitrary and unfounded adoption of the two -day work scheme which greatly reduced La Rosa. The hotel appealed and prayed for the issuance of an injunctive writ before the Court of Appeals. however. The hotel·s memorandum dated April 5. when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both. should be 2002) informing La Rosa et al.) Case law holds that constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible.·s immediate filing of complaints for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal after the 23 . 2002 made no mention why such scheme was being adopted. some of which complaints were partially settled. is that the complaints for violation of labor standards laws were filed by La Rosa et al. The hotel however countered that such reduction/rotation scheme was an exercise of its management prerogative due to business losses.Quantum Foods· image and goodwill. et al. J. La Rosa. privileges and other benefits. et al. or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. the management of the hotel retaliated by suspending and/or constructively dismissing them by drastically reducing their work days through the adoption of a work reduction/rotation scheme. FE LA ROSA. Jona Natividad and Edgar De Leon (La Rosa. v. Consequently. La Rosa et al. Neither was there any demotion in rank or any diminution of Endico·s salary. stating that there was no constructive dismissal. insensibility. to show any documentary proof that the work reduction scheme was adopted due to Ambassador·s business reverses. La Rosa. Upon the other hand. The hotel·s sudden. et al. insensibility. Case law holds that constructive dismissal occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible. The hotel appealed to the NLRC but the latter affirmed the labor arbiter·s ruling with modification. The hotel was thereafter found to have been violating labor standards laws. the latter inspected the hotel·s premises. AMBASSADOR HOTEL 581 SCRA 340 (2009). Ofelia Velez. the Court rules that the transfer is valid. Cely Domingo. was acting in the legitimate pursuit of what it considered its best interest in deciding to transfer Endico to the head office. against Ambassador Hotel at the DOLE-NCR. were employees of respondent Ambassador Hotel. Endico was being transferred to the head office as area sales manager. or when a clear discrimination. ISSUES: Whether or not La Rosa et al. unreasonable or unlikely. 2000 (sic. when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both. There was also no proof that the transfer involved a diminution of Endico·s salary. On the alleged inconvenience on Endico and his family because of the transfer from Cebu to the head office in Parañaque. filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) several complaints for illegal dismissal. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales.). alleged that after filing their complaints with the Department of Labor. privileges and other benefits. Moreover. there being no showing that there was bad faith on the part of Quantum Foods. Neither do the records show any documentary proof that the hotel suffered financial losses to justify its adoption of the said scheme to stabilize its operations. considering the declining sales and the loss of a major account in Cebu. of the adoption of a two-day work scheme effective April 5. the same position Endico held in Cebu. were constructively dismissed HELD: The records fail. unreasonable or unlikely.

without exceptions one of which is when the findings of fact of the labor officials on which the conclusion was based are not supported by substantial evidence. Dismissal is unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to 24 . Felix. Felix. failing which he would be terminated for loss of confidence. they are not of such nature to merit the penalty of dismissal given the 14 years in service of Felix. Sometime in 1992. must be substantial ² it must clearly and convincingly establish the facts upon which loss of confidence in the employee may be made to rest. refused to resign and accept separation benefits. The same is true when it is perceived that far too much is concluded. he was asked by certain officers of the company to resign and accept a separation package. The Court of Appeals likewise dismissed the complaint. Felix attributed the company's harassment against him to his being a member of the supervisory union then being formed. The Republic Asahi Glass Corporation subsequently terminated Felix·x services for loss of trust and confidence. proof beyond reasonable doubt. was assigned to take over his post and function. the company failed to discharge this burden. Impartial tribunals do not only rely on the statement made by the employer that there is loss of confidence unless duly proved or sufficiently substantiated. however. It bears emphasis that the matter of determining whether the cause for dismissal is justified on the ground of loss of confidence cannot be left entirely to the employer. An employee who takes steps to protest his dismissal cannot by logic be said to have abandoned his work. Unable to withstand the manner by which he was being treated by the company. who denied the charges against him. ISSUE: Whether or not the company·s loss of trust and confidence is founded on facts established by substantial and competent evidence HELD: The rule is that high respect is accorded to the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies. The employer·s evidence. It is settled that where the employee denies the charges against him. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Felix's complaint. At all events. which scheme was adopted soon after petitioners· complaints against respondent for violation of labor standards laws were found meritorious. negates respondent·s claim of abandonment. more so in the case at bar where both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC share the same findings. Felix thus lodged a complaint for illegal dismissal. through his lawyer. drawing the officers of the company to. The rule is not however.implementation of the questioned work scheme. The failure of the company to give petitioner. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed Felix's complaint for lack of merit. inferred or deducted from bare facts adduced in evidence.) Substantial evidence must support the dismissal of an employee on the ground of ´loss of trust and confidenceµ. Thus. By Felix's claim. In the case at bar. warned the Republic Asahi Glass Corporation about the illegality of its actions. he was not given work and another employee. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and REPUBLIC ASAHI GLASS CORPORATION 442 SCRA 465 (2004). THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales.e. ADELINO FELIX v. the benefit of a hearing and an investigation before his termination constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process. start harassing him. even if all the allegations are true. Elmer Tacata. Felix was offered a chance to train and qualify for the position of Assistant Manager but he declined and waived the opportunity to the one who was next-in-line. Mr. Petitioner Adelino Felix was hired by the Republic Asahi Glass Corporation as a Cadet Engineer. a hearing is necessary to thresh out any doubt. Felix was hastily dismissed by ASAHI as the former was not given adequate time to prepare for his defense but was preemptorily dismissed even without any formal investigation or hearing. although not required to be of such degree as that required in criminal cases i. J. On appeal. by his claim.

G&M thus failed to discharge the onus probandi. Inc. remittances and other similar documents ³ which will show that overtime. To discharge means to extinguish an obligation. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. The Labor Arbiter (LA) credited Batomalaque·s complaint for underpayment of salaries during the first year of his contract but denied his other claims. An email was sent to Amkor Technology Philippines (Amkor) through their General Manager alleging that the Lunesa Lansangan (Lansangan) and Rocita Cendana (Cendana) stole com pany time. He then filed a complaint against G&M.) The burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer. LUNESA O. G & M (PHIL. service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid ³ are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer. the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer. (G&M). and ordered G&M and other defendants to pay Batomalaque. J. records. This rule on proportionality ² that the penalty imposed should commensurate to the gravity of the offense ² has been observed in a number of cases. payrolls. The fact of underpayment does not shift the burden of evidence to Batomalaque because partial payment does not extinguish the obligation. 1992. AMKOR TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES 577 SCRA 493 (2009).. On appeal.g.the charges. from its bare allegation that its principal Abdul Aziz had fully paid Batomalaque·s salaries. J. Abdul Aziz and Country Empire Insurance Company for non -payment and underpayment of salaries and damages with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).. G&M. G&M did not present any evidence. There being no basis in law or in fact justifying Felix·s dismissal on the basis of loss of trust and confidence. his dismissal was illegal. is thus solidarily liable with the latter for the unpaid wages of Batomalaque. the rationale being that the pertinent personnel files. and in contract law discharge occurs either when the parties have performed their obligations in the contract. WILLIE BATOMALAQUE 461 SCRA 111 (2005). however. On repeated occasions. he was repatriated. Abdul Aziz Abdullah Al Muhaimid Najad Car Maintenance Association (Abdul Aziz) hired Willie Batomalaque as car painter through a recruiter and agent petitioner G & M Phil. a party who alleges that an obligation has been extinguished must prove facts or acts giving rise to the extinction.) Payment of backwages and other benefits is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed.. Only when the debtor introduces evidence that the obligation has been extinguished does the burden of evidence shift to the creditor who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show why payment does not extinguish the obligation. differentials. or when an event the conduct of the parties. INC. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. LANSANGAN AND ROCITA CENDAÑA v. Lansangan and 25 . Aside. Thus. 1994.). Batomalaque started working on March 10. the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the decision of the LA. Their contract is for 2 years. v. the Court ruled that the debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment. to support its defense of payment. or the operation of law releases the parties from performing. e. as the recruiter and agent of Abdul Aziz. but on June 7. ISSUE: Whether or not G&M has the obligation to prove that Batomalaque was paid his salaries in full HELD: Specifically with respect to labor cases. payroll or payslips.

J. separation pay is granted. separation pay and backwages.) An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement. The two then filed a case of illegal dismissal against Amkor. The NLRC deleted the grant for reinstatement of the LA. ISSUE: Whether or not Macasero is illegally dismissed and is entitled to separation pay HELD: While both labor tribunals and the appellate court held that Macasero failed to prove the fact of his dismissal. NLRC so states ²² payment of backwages and other benefits is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed. The Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed the decision of the NLRC. In effect. PANFILO MACASERO v. The accepted doctrine is that separation pay may avail in lieu of reinstatement if reinstatement is no longer practical or in the best interest of the parties. as stated earlier. The two reliefs provided are separate and distinct. Philippines (SIGP). an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstateme nt. Panfilo Macasero works as Carbon Dioxide Bulk Tank Escort for Southern Industrial Gases. for under Article 279 of the Labor Code and as held in a catena of cases. The two did not appeal the finding that they were guilty. ISSUE: Whether or not Lansangan and Cendana are entitled to backwages and reinstatement HELD: The Arbiter found Lansangan and Cendana·s dismissal to be valid. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the LA but modified the computation for the separation pay. an employee who is dismissed without just cause and without due process is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof. Agabon v. or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable. separation pay is granted. 26 . and moved for the writ of execution.Cendana admitted to the wrongdoing and were terminated for extremely serious offenses . they oddly ordered the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement in light of SIGP company·s "firm stance that Macasero was not its employee vis a vis the unflinching assertion of Macasero that he was which does not create a fertile ground for reinstatement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the NLRC that Lansangan and Cendana are guilty and should not be reinstated but modified in so far as backwages are concerned that it must be paid in full. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL GASES PHILIPPINES and/or NEIL LINDSAY 577 SCRA 500 (2009). He was severed from his job for the reason that his services were no longer needed. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ordered for their reinstatement to their former positions without backwages. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. but dismissed the complaint on basis of Lansangan and Cendana·s guilt. and backwages. or if not. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement may likewise be awarded if the employee decides not to be reinstated. Lansangan and Cendana·s are not entitled to full backwages as their dismissal was not found to be illegal. if viable. an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement. Such finding had. if viable. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations between the employee and the employer. In instances where reinstatement is no longer feasible. Macasero filed a case of illegal dismissal against SIGP before the Labor Arbiter (LA) who ruled that he is considered a regular employee but was not illegally dismissed and that he is entitled to separation pay equivalent to 1 month for every year of service plus 13th month pay. In effect. become final. they not having appealed it. an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs: backwages and reinstatement." It goes without saying that the award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal. Amkor appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) and was subsequently granted. Thus.

) The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his job under the circumstances. In the present case. 179174. Madrigalejos filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NRLC) a complaint for constructive dismissal against Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera et al. and it contained a waiver of benefits that had accrued since he started working for respondents. but that he simply failed to report for work after an altercation with a fellow driver. The appellate court added that while technical rules on evidence are not strictly followed in the NLRC. J. Inc. or when a clear discrimination. The Labor Arbiter declared that Madrigalejos had been illegally dismissed. explaining that he unilaterally decided to stop reporting for work. or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The NLRC reversed the Decision ruling that there was no termination of employment. are supported by substantial evidence. the records on hand show that the lone piece of evidence su bmitted by petitioner to substantiate his claim of constructive dismissal is an unsigned copy of the Kasunduan.Reynaldo Madrigalejos v. The appellate court denied petitioner·s appeal finding that even assuming that Madrigalejos was required but refused to sign the Kasunduan. Under the circumstances. is substantial evidence. or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. as the appellate court pointed out. his refusal does not per se adequately support the charge of dismissal. as affirmed by the appellate court. denied dismissing Madrigalejos from his employment. Claiming that he was terminated by not signing the Kasunduan. R. insensibility. G. Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera et al. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio-Morales. the Court finds that the appellate court did not err in sustaining Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera et al·s claim that Madrigalejos was not dismissed. Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera et al. 27 . to sign a contract entitled ´Kasunduan Sa Pag-Upa ng Serbisyoµ which he refused as he found it to alter his status as a regular employee to merely contractual. or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. there is no cogent reason for the Court to modify or reverse the same. when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his job under the circumstances. Madrigalejos claimed that he was requested by Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera et al. hence. This falls way short of the required quantum of proof which. a charge of dismissal must still be supported by substantial evidence at the very least. which incident was the subject of conciliation proceedings before the Sangguniang Barangay. Constructive dismissal is a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible. 24 December 2008. following the filing by a fellow driver of a complaint against him for allegedly attacking his fellow driver with a knife. ISSUE: Whether or not the employer bears the burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to report for work HELD: The Court's examination of the records reveals that the factual findings of the NLRC. Reynaldo Madrigalejos was hired by Geminilou Trucking Service Liberty Galotera as a truck driver to haul and deliver products of San Miguel Pure Foods Company. unreasonable or unlikely. No.

As a pre-employment requirement. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales J. however. She requested that any action relative to her employment be held in abeyance as she was still following up the early resolution of the case. This. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. and that doing so would result in summary dismissal. Dulce Alba (Alba) was hired as part of the service crew of McDonald·s Katipunan Branch. She was advised that the processing of her regularization as employee would be held in abeyance. especially when in its opinion it has committed an error or mistake in judgment and adherence to its decision would cause injustice. reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter (LA). The bank gave her extension dates twice with information that her failure to do so would cause the termination of her employment. However. DULCE ALBA 574 SCRA 427 (2008). In response. Mauricio likewise fails to point out. v. and moral and exemplary damages against the bank before the Labor Arbiter. Majurine L. but such was dismissed. J. The CA affirmed the NLRC decision. ISSUE Whether or not NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it reversed its original Decision and reinstated in toto Decision of the Labor Arbiter HELD There is nothing radical and highly questionable with the NLRC reversing its original decision if supported with substantial evidence. she fails to explain why the NLRC should not have reversed it and why the Court of Appeals should not have sustained the reversal. Mauricio. she failed to do so. she still failed to comply with the requirements. the NLRC already passed upon the arguments raised by respondents in their Motion for Reconsideration before it. the bank denied her request. On the bank·s Motion for Reconsideration. Ma. Mauricio (Majurine) started working as an Administrative Assistant in the Legal Department of the Manila Banking Corporation as a probationary employee. the bank directed the submission by Mauricio of some required documents. Mauricio thereupon challenged via Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). et al. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. however. as she had a pending case with it. Thus. should be performed with wrongful intent. unpaid salary. This includes the right to reverse itself. MAURICIO v. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. while Mauricio quotes at length the September 24. During the orientation of newly hired employees. 475 SCRA 323 (2005). reinstated in toto the Decision of the LA.) Violation of established rules and policies .MAJURINE L. McDonald·s provided Alba with a copy of the Crew Employee Handbook on rules and regulations including its meal policies. the NLRC exercised which bore the imprimatur of the CA. especially when in its opinion it has committed an error or mistake in judgment and adherence to its decision would cause injustice. On Mauricio·s appeal. One of the inherent powers of courts which should apply in equal force to quasi-judicial bodies is to amend and control its processes so as to make them conformable to law and justice. 2001 original decision of the NLRC.) One of the inherent powers of courts which should apply in equal force to quasi -judicial bodies is to amend and control its processes so as to make them conformable to law and justice. MA. Mauricio herself provides the answer when she quotes in her present petition what she terms as the trenchant observation of the High Court . Mauricio has. And what error of law should be reviewed by this Court. MCDONALD·S (KATIPUNAN BRANCH). Despite the deadline given her. 28 . informed the bank that she could not secure a clearance from her previous employer. to be considered serious misconduct. Respecting Mauricio·s contention that in its earlier Decision. which state that an employee was not permitted to eat inside the crew room while on duty. the Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation (MBLIC). et al. This includ es the right to reverse itself. the NLRC. failed to advance any meritorious ground why the Court should disturb such exercise. In her petition. a sister company of the bank.

When asked about it. With that penalty. Acting on Panuncillo·s motion for reconsideration. Nevertheless. they having merely anchored their claim that she was on her knowledge of the meal policy. CAP Philippines Inc. and suspension without pay would have sufficed. reported to the store manager Kit Alvarez (Alvarez) that she witnessed Alba eating inside the crew room during her duty. failed to prove that her misconduct was induced by a perverse and wrongful intent. Panuncillo pledged it for P50. the Supreme Court holds not. Their claim that the act would cause "irremediable harm to the company·s business" is too vague to merit consideration. and the corresponding sanctions for violations thereof. which is not implausible.Rizza Santiago (Santiago). the necessity of cautioning other employees who may be wont to violate the same policy was not compromised. INC. that Panuncillo had "swindled" her but that she was willing to settle the case amicably as long as Panuncillo will pay the amount involved and the interest. CAP PHILIPPINES. Panuncillo sought reconsideration of her dismissal.) The protection of the rights of the laborers does not authorize the oppression or self -destruction of the employer. Alba re-filed her complaint. McDonald·s appealed the finding of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. which denied the same. sold it to Benito Bonghanoy. and after submission of the parties· respective position papers and responsive pleadings. however. Before the actual transfer of the plan could be effected. 29 . McDonald·s. Bonghanoy in turn sold the plan to Gaudioso R. be fair and reasonable at all times. Labor Arbiter Pablo Espiritu Jr. the same should have been properly taken into account in the imposition of the appropriate penalty for violation of the meal policy. Uy for P60. 515 SCRA 323 (2007). McDonald·s suspension for five days sufficed. Alba explained that she did indeed ate inside the crew room but that it was only because she was had a stomach ache due to hunger. however. McDonald·s found Alba guilty of flouting company regulations and immediately terminated her services. While McDonald·s wields a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies. CAP Philippines Inc. found in favor of Alba. Alba thus lodged a complaint against McDonald·s before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which dismissed it without prejudice. Having gotten wind of the transactions subsequent to her purchase of the plan. terminated the services of Panuncillo.000. McDonald·s thus suspended Alba for five days because of the incident. however. Milagros Panuncillo was hired as Office Senior Clerk by CAP Philippines Inc. In order to secure the education of her son. rules and regulations on work-related activities of its employees. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. Moreover. J. to call for respondent·s dismissal. It must have been performed with wrongful intent. denied the same.000. Panuncillo procured an educational plan which she had fully paid but which she later sold to Josefina Pernes for P37. MILAGROS PANUNCILLO v. By any measure. these must. on which the onus of proving lawful cause in sustaining the dismissal of Alba lies. must be commensurate thereto as well as to the degree of the infraction. as petitioners posit. ISSUE: Whether or not the violation of the meal policy amounts to serious or willful misconduct which would justify dismissal HELD: There is no dispute that Alba violated McDonald·s meal policy. it is not sufficient that the act or the conduct complained of must have violated some established rules or policies. Josefina informed CAP Philippines Inc. another crew member. holding that while she violated the meal policy of McDonald·s. With respect to serious misconduct. dismissal was too harsh a penalty.000 to John Chua who. when prescribed. McDonald·s likewise failed to prove any resultant material damage or prejudice on their part as a consequence of respondent's questioned act. Given Alba·s claim that she was having stomach pains due to hunger. The only issue is whether such violation amounts to or borders on "serious or willful" misconduct or willful disobedience.

challenged the NLRC Decision before the appellate court via Petition for Certiorari. NOEL E. Parenthetically. Mora (Mora) was hired as a sales engineer at herein respondent. He consequently changed his mind and withdrew his letter of resignation on the same day. damages and attorney·s fees against CAP Philippines Inc. when an employee admits the acts complained of. The case was thus referred to National Conciliation and Mediation Board for voluntary arbitration which dismissed Mora's complaint upon the ground that he had voluntarily resigned prompting him to file a petition for certiorari 30 . CAP Philippines Inc. J. found the same too harsh. it will demoralize the rank and file if the undeserving. Hence. as in Panuncillo·s case. The employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of a person who was found guilty of maliciously committing acts which are detrimental to his interests. Avesco·s personnel manager issued a notice of disciplinary action. Noel E. On appeal. the employer may terminate an employment on the ground of serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work. exercised its management prerogative when it dismissed Panuncillo. It will be highly prejudicial to the interests of the employer to impose on him the charges that warranted his dismissal from employment. CAP Philippines Inc. complied with the procedural requirements of due process. ISSUE: Whether or not Milagros has been illegally dismissed HELD: Panuncillo·s repeated violation of Section 8. under the risk of being embroiled in unnecessary lawsuits from customers similarly situated as Josefina. To allow her to continue with her employment puts CAP Philippines Inc. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Clearly. it cannot authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. There can thus be no doubt that Panuncillo was given ample opportunity to explain her side.4 of CAP Philippines Inc·s Code of Discipline. and its customers. It held that Panuncillo·s dismissal was illegal and accordingly ordered her reinstatement to her former position. Avesco Marketing Corporation (Avesco). Under the Labor Code. while finding that the dismissal was for a valid cause. Infractions of company rules and regulations have been declared to belong to this category and thus are valid causes for termination of employment by the employer. both the intent and the overt act of relinquishment should concu r. the present petition. et al. Mora filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since the dispute falls within the province of the grievance procedure provided for by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Avesco and the workers· union. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. The Labor Arbiter. AVESCO MARKETING CORPORATION 571 SCRA 226 (2008). MORA v. The following day. He thus ordered the reinstatement of Panuncillo to a position one rank lower than her previous position. It may encourage him to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to observe. service incentive leave pay. no forma hearing is even l necessary. 13th month pay.Panuncillo thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. This Court was more emphatic in holding that in protecting the rights of the laborer. she violated the trust and confidence of CAP Philippines Inc. if not undesirable. Mora has not heard anything from the Avesco and thereafter learned from third party sources that his employment had been terminated. remain in the service. Indeed. He tendered a letter of resignation after being confronted for selling competitors· products to the prejudice and detriment of Avesco and was given the option of either immediately resigning or face administrative charges.) Voluntary resignations being unconditional in nature. The appellate court reversed the NLRC Decision and held that the dismissal was valid and that CAP Philippines Inc.

both the intent and the overt act of relinquishment should concur. MERALCO·s evidence consisted primarily of the sworn statements of Cabuhat alleging that he was induced by Naguit to falsify the time cards. 1 987. no testimonial or documentary proof thereof was proffered. Naguit did not inform the timekeeper of this fact. In the administrative hearing. Upon the preparation of his timesheet. Avesco in this case failed to discharge such burden. it similarly finding him to have voluntarily resigned from his job. et al. on June 6. as in Mora's case. there is no showing that one such was conducted and. the employer is burdened to prove the due execution and genuineness of such evidence. 408 SCRA 617 (2003). ISSUE: Whether or not Mora was voluntarily resigned from his job HELD: Voluntary resignations being unconditional in nature. it should first be accepted or approved by the employer. The charge of falsification against him does not thus lie. ANICETO W. the Court has consistently held that where the adverse party is deprived of opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. the Court credits that Naguit was in good faith when he did not correct the entry in the Notice of Overtime and Timesheet reflecting that he worked up to 5:00 p.before the Court of Appeals which denied the same. what the result was. an employer cannot just hurl generalized accusations but should at least cite specific instances and proof in support thereof. While selling of Avesco·s competitors· products is a valid ground for termination of employment. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. the Labor Code provides that the adverse party should be given opportun ity to cross-examine the affiants. affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay. Two years later. unless the affiant themselves are 31 . The Labor Arbiter rendered decision in favor of Naguit. v. it was reflected that he worked until 5pm instead of 12pm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC·s decision. Naguit rendered overtime work 8am to 12pm.m. Naguit was dismissed after 32 years of service. Naguit being the custodian of petty cash. Mora·s receipt by Avesco·s personnel department of his resignation letter is not equivalent to approval. Avesco·s approval was a fortiori necessary. 2003. Issue: Whether or not the NLRC erred in giving full credence to the affidavit of Cabuhat Held: In fine. If the employer introduces evidence purportedly executed by an employee as proof of voluntary resignation yet the employee specifically denies such evidence. Furthermore. Since Mora requested that his resignation was to be effective a month later or on April 25.) In order for affidavits to be admissible as evidence. Naguit appealed his dismissal. For a resignation tendered by an employee to take effect. Avesco relied on a report by [Mora·s] superiors in faulting Mora. Petitioner Aniceto Naguit was employed as an administrative officer of the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). And while Avesco gave the impression that it conducted or was going to conduct an investigation on the basis of the report. he was charged with violating company policy because of said incident. NAGUIT JR. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. That Avesco issued the show cause letter a day after Mora filed the controversial letter of resignation could only mean that it did not accept the same. J. What this alleged report was and what it contained. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. On appeal. if there was. In labor cases. released to Fidel Cabuhat the amount representing meal allowance and rental for a jeep covering his alleged overtime work.

of the standards they were expected to meet. VICTOR PIA. New Sunrise failed to prove that the alleged inefficiency of the 12 respondents amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duties.. at the time of hiring. 527 SCRA 289 (2007). their proportionate 13th month pay and corresponding salaries for the unexpired portion. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pia. J. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found Ronaldo Nicol. NEW SUNRISE METAL CONSTRUCTION. Two days after. et al. Thusly. were constructively dismissed and awarded them separation pay. filed a complainant for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages as well as non-payment of other benefits before the Labor Arbiter. this petition. the employees filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) two separate complaints for illegal closure resulting to illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wage increase. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. et al. that they were supposed to reach certain quotas. Pia. Hence. ISSUE: Whether or not incompetence or poor performance. There is no denying that the unsatisfactory performance of the employees were proven in the report provided by New Sunrise but sad to say. 528 SCRA 300 (2007).placed on the witness stand to testify thereon. The company declared the total closure and cessation of its business operations allegedly because of severe losses and notified the employees that they shall be terminated from employment. Naguit contends that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving full credence to the affidavits of Cabuhat claiming that he was induced by Naguit to claim overtime pay despite Cabuhat's failure to affirm them during the arbitral proceedings. as amended. RONALDO NICOL et al. et al. thus making them inadmissible under the hearsay rule.) Unsatisfactory performance. Subsequently. allows the reduction of the appeal bond. The NLRC reversed its resolution finding the dismissal to be based on just cause. i. he having failed to show up. As Foot Joy failed to post the additional bond the NLRC dismissed Foot Joy·s appeal for non-perfection thereof. such affidavits of Cabuhat are inadmissible as evidence against Naguit. can be a valid cause for termination of employment HELD: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Labor Arbiter positing that at all events. New Sunrise failed to establish that they were informed. 32 . v. News of a temporary shutdown of respondent Foot Joy Industrial Corp. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. This is not to mention that New Sunrise failed to present proof that respondents were apprised of their poor or below average performance after each evaluation period to at least give them the opportunity to improve their performance. 2001. Foot Joy filed a Motion to Reduce Bond with their appeal to the NLRC but the Motion was denied. came about on February 2. FOOT JOY INDUSTRIAL CORP. under the Labor Code. were hired by New Sunrise under separate 6-month contracts but their services were subsequently terminated even before the expiration of said contract due to alleged poor performance. unsatisfactory performance cannot be considered a just cause for dismissal under the Labor Code if it does not amount to gross and habitual neglect of duties. et al. On this score. the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC. et al. a fire razed the company and its premises. not amounting to gross and habitual neglect of duties. et al. A motion for reconsideration was filed. On appeal.) The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. Victor Pia. On appeal. it is not enough proof that it amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duties. the Court of Appeals affirmed the Labor Arbiter·s decision. Further. J. New sunrise appealed to the National Labor and Relations Commission (NLRC) but NLRC dismissed the appeal. v. et al. must be gross and habitual to constitute just cause for dismissal.e. et al New Sunrise was ordered to pay Pia.

allows the reduction of the appeal bond. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales.ISSUE: Whether or not a motion to reduce the appeal bond can be given due course even if it is not accompanied by a bond in a reasonable amount HELD: It is provided in Article 223 of the Labor Code that in case of a judgment involving a monetary award. series of 2002. There is no dispute that respondents filed a Notice of Appeal and complied with the other requirements for perfecting an appeal. it is the intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer. Sections 4(a) of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC the states that one of the requisites for perfection of appeal is that it shall be filed with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and surety bond as provided in Section 6 of the Rule. one of which is in the guise of retrenchment. on the basis of just or authorized cause. otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. This practice-evolved rule has been made explicit by Resolution 01-02. subject to the conditions that (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds. G. They were dismissed by Philippine Airlines on several grounds. respondents· Motion to Reduce Bond was accompanied by an actual tender of a P10 million surety bond executed by the Security Pacific Assurance Corporation. exclusive of damages and attorney·s fees. and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant. 30 April 2009.) It must be stressed that respondents. The appeal bond shall either be in cash or surety in an amount equivalent to the monetary award. INC. et al. As such. save for the posting of the full amount of the bond. It was later discovered that Synergy is a labor-only contractor. ENRIQUE LIGAN. the posting of a cash or surety bond to perfect an appeal of a monetary judgment is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. had acquired security of tenure. Enrique Ligan. an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. No. non-compliance with which has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. The necessary import of the foregoing provisions is that in the case of an employer appealing the labor arbiter·s decision to the NLRC. but contested the employment status of Roque Pilapil for he is already terminated and Benedicto Auxtero who signed the Release and Quitclaim and Waiver . Philippine Airlines therefore pleads to the court to reconsider its first Decision on the payment of wages and benefits. v. 146408. Philippine Airlines paid the wages of the Ligan. on December 20. 33 . And admittedly. et al. Section 6 provides that In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award. Court of Appeals. as amended. Also. 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. et al. et al. The legality of the dismissal of the Ligan. having been declared to be regular employees. and the other respondents were employees of Synergy Services Corporation (Synergy) which provides manpower for Philippine Airlines. As stressed in Ong v. et al. ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme Court shall overrule its first decision regarding the grant of wages and benefits to Ligan. Section 6 of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC. J.R. Be that as it may. they could only be dismissed by the real employer. has been pending before the Court of Appeals. 2001 or nine days after receipt of the labor arbiter·s decision. and with observance of procedural due process.

J. et al." so to speak. according due deference to one·s superiors. The Court takes judicial notice of the Filipino values of pakikisama and paggalang which are not only prevalent among members of a family and community but within organizations as well. When Geisert did not approve of the plan. especially among high-ranking management officers. et al. ETSI TECHNOLOGIES. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. INC. et al. On appeal. SP No. All told. the claims with respect to Pilapil and Auxtero having been deemed extinguished even before the promulgation of the Decision. their corresponding benefits and salary differential up to June 30. Her immediate superior. because the matter of just or authorized cause is beyond the issues of the case. et al. he cannot afford to be disrespectful. respondent Werner Geisert. the pending illegal dismissal case in CA-G. at the very least. The Court of Appeals held that Punzal·s dismissal was in order. it must be deemed to be without prejudice to the resolution of the issue of illegal dismissal in the proper case. para bang palagi siyang iniisahan sa trabaho.HELD: In light of these recent manifestations-informations of the parties. She was then dismissed from employment due to improper conduct or act of discourtesy or disrespect and making malicious statements concerning company officer. Punzal then sent a second e-mail to her officemates that states Geisert was so unfair . are regular employees of PAL neither frustrates nor preempts the appellate court·s proceedings in resolving the issue of retrenchment as an authorized cause for termination. LORNA DISING PUNZAL v. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid cause to dismiss Punzal HELD: A cordial or.R. the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to her infraction. PAL would still have to pay Ligan... and Remudaro.·s complaints for regularization and under-/non-payment of benefits. An employee is expected to extend due respect to management. et al. an order for reinstatement with full backwages does not conflict with the Court·s declaration of the regular employee status of Ligan. including work sites. 1998. The Court did not and could not take cognizance of the validity of the eventual dismissal of Ligan. That is why the Court did not order reinstatement for such relief presupposes a finding of illegal dismissal in the proper case which. respondent Carmelo Remudaro advised her to first secure the approval of the SVP. the employer being the "proverbial hen that lays the golden egg. Petitioner Lorna Dising Punzal (Punzal) had been working for respondent ETSI Technologies. If an authorized cause for dismissal is later found to exist. solohin na lang niya bukas ang office. . et al. pends before the appellate court.) No matter how much the employee dislikes the employer professionally. Notably. the NLRC found that while she was indeed guilty of misconduct. Otherwise. While this Court·s Decision ruled on the regular status of Ligan. That Pilapil was a regular employee yields to the final finding of a valid dismissal in the supervening case involving his own misconduct. Inc. 00922 may now take its course. IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. but proceeds. . subject of the Decision was Ligan. (ETSI) as Department Secretary. Punzal filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal against ETSI. et al. . while Auxtero·s attempt at forumshopping should not be countenanced. to clarify a few points. The Court·s finding that Ligan. The complaint was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter. is still observed. the Court finds no sufficient reason to deviate from its Decision. if there is a finding of illegal dismissal. Geisert. Punzal sent an e-mail message to her officemates announcing the holding of a Halloween Party that was to be held in the office. civil attitude. the Court finds that a modification of the Decision is in order. 518 SCRA 66 (2007). Anyway. as the parties now manifest. An aggrieved employee who wants to unburden himself of his disappointments and frustrations in his job or relations with his immediate 34 . ." Punzal·s superiors required her to explain her actions which found such as unacceptable. nonetheless.

birthdays. ISSUE: Whether or not the employees are entitled to the questioned salary according to the provision of the CBA HELD: If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. Indeed. it should have been so incorporated therein. Respondent unions thus claimed payment of their members· salaries. and even if he is in a confrontational disposition. During the first year of the effectivity of the CBAs in 2000. Under the CBA. Given the reasonableness of Geisert·s decision that provoked Punzal to send the second e-mail message. RFM agreed to make payment to all daily paid employees on Black Saturday. although the worker is forced to take a rest. ruling in favor of KAMPINAFLU-KMU and SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU and ordered RFM to pay their salaries." The CBA is the law between the parties. 35 . Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to labor. 2000 was not compensable as it was a rest day. he earns what he should earn. as in the herein questioned provision. averring that December 31. the observations of the Court of Appeals that "the message x x x resounds of subversion and undermines the authority and credibility of management" and that petitioner "displayed a tendency to act without management·s approval. that is. That it has been a tradition in ETSI to celebrate occasions such as Christmas. they are obliged to comply with its provisions. his holiday pay. and others does not remove Geisert·s prerogative to approve or disapprove plans to hold such celebrations in office premises and during company time. November 1 and December 31 if declared as special holidays by the national government. hence. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision. In other words. Petitioner RFM Corporation. Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. That is settled. its literal meaning shall prevail. a domestic corporation entered into collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the Kasapian ng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-RFM (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) and Sandigan at Ugnayan ng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-SFI (SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU). The Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) declared that the provision of the CBA is clear. J. December 31 which fell on a Sunday was declared by the national government as a special holiday. No matter how much the employee dislikes the employer professionally. he cannot afford to be disrespectful and dare to talk with an unguarded tongue and/or with a bileful pen. Halloween. the daily-paid employees must be paid their regular salaries on the holidays which are so declared by the national government. KASAPIAN NG MANGGA-GAWANG PINAGKAISA-RFM (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) and SANDIGAN AT UGNAYAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGKAISA-SFI (SUMAPI-NAFLUKMU) 578 SCRA 34 (2009).) If the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting partie s. regardless of whether they fall on rest days. Punzal sent the e-mail message in reaction to Geisert·s decision which he had all the right to make. RFM CORPORATION-FLOUR DIVISION and SFI FEEDS DIVISION v. The controversy resulted in a deadlock. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. if petitioner and respondents intended the provision in question to cover payment only during holidays falling on work or weekdays. As such. and even against management·s will" are well taken. the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. invoking the CBA provision. drawing the parties to submit the same for voluntary arbitration.superior would normally approach said superior directly or otherwise ask some other officer possibly to mediate and discuss the problem with the end in view of settling their differences without causing ferocious conflicts. RFM refused the claims for payment.

) ´Promises or offers for a fee employmentµ is sufficient to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment.00. but the result was the same.00 to Ferre.00. their departure was rescheduled. there is no doubt. individually or as a group. Ferre and Corpus agreed and went to the former·s office.00 as processing fee and another P4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 498 SCRA 377 (2006). Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked. whether for profit or not. Mateo. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. Rodolfo approached private complainants Necitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus individually and invited them to apply for overseas employment in Dubai. contract services. transporting.000. ISSUE: Whether or not Rodolfo is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale HELD: The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment.000. it becomes an illegal recruitment in a large scale.RFM maintains. promising or advertising for employment. contracting. ROSA C. J. The RTC rendered judgement against Rodolfo but in imposing the penalty. The Court is not persuaded. Likewise. A Certification to that effect was in fact issued by Hermogenes C. Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as [a]ny act of canvassing. Rodolfo. Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. The CA dismissed the petition but modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. only the complaint of two (Ferre and Corpus) of the five complainants was proven. Petitioner Rosa C. it should be interpreted in favor of labor. however. the RTC took note of the fact that while the information reflected the commission of illegal recruitment in large scale. The CA also dismissed Rodolfo·s Motion for Reconsideration. Rodolfo issued provisional receipts indicating that the amounts she received from the private complainants were turned over to Luzviminda Marcos and Florante Hinahon does not free her from liability. Corpus and three others then filed a case for illegal recruitment in large scale with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Rodolfo. testified that the records of the POEA do not show that Rodolfo is authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. are: (1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. RODOLFO v. Rodolfo·s admission that she brought private complainants to the agency whose owner she knows and her acceptance o fees f including those for processing betrays her guilt. Thus. The office bore the business name Bayside Manpower Export Specialist . and includes referrals. is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer.000. The Labor Code specifically enjoins that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor. In that office. Rodolfo then told Ferre and Corpus that they were scheduled to leave for Dubai. Corpus gave Rodolfo P7. or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. which is included in recruitment. being their neighbor. locally or abroad. However. Except for the refund of P1. utilizing. private complainants and all the other applicants were not able to depart on the scheduled date as their employer allegedly did not arrive. That the first element is present in the case at bar. that the parties failed to foresee a situation where the special holiday would fall on a rest day. Chief of the Licensing Division of POEA. Ferre and Corpus demanded of Rodolfo to return their money.000. For the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. placement officer or bureau. Ferre gave P1. If another element is present that the accused commits the act against three or more persons. It is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee 36 . The act of referral. The second element is doubtless also present. enlisting. hiring or procuring workers. Ferre. Rodolfo was not able to return Ferre·s and Corpus· money. Jose Valeriano. Rodolfo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). and (2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b). which must concur.

except only as to the results of the work. Parenthetically. the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. In legitimate labor contracting. are employees of SMC HELD: The test to determine the existence of independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of the employer. the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose. respondent Prospero Aballa et al. the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint and ruled in favor of SMC. Aballa et al. In labor-only contracting. it being crucial that its character be measured in terms of and determined by the criteria set by statute. work premises and other materials to qualify it as an independent contractor. But it went on to state that it is rather the undertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority that makes a case for illegal recruitment. machineries and all other working tools utilized by Aballa et al. PROSPERO A. SMC filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Notice of Closure due to serious business losses. The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the principal employer. The language of a contract is not. The Contract of Services between SMC and Sunflower shows that the parties clearly disavowed the existence of an employer-employee relationship between SMC and private respondents. After one year of rendering service. Pursuant to this. filed a complaint before National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) praying that they be declared as regular employees of SMC. i. in carrying out their tasks were owned and provided by SMC.e. 37 . Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and Sunflower Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Sunflower) entered into a one-year Contract of Service and such contract is renewed on a monthly basis until terminated. equipment. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor. What appears is that Sunflower does not have substantial capitalization or investment in the form of tools.e. the character of its business. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. whether as labor-only contractor or job contractor. J.) The language of a contract disavowing the existence of an employer -employee relationship is not determinative of the parties· relationship. in light of her claim that she merely brought them to the agency. i. only for the payment of the employees· wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. On the other hand. Other than that. Hence. why Rodolfo accepted the payment of fees from the private complainants when. it is gathered that the lot. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. however. ABALLA et al.employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment. the Court held that issuance of receipts for placement fees does not make a case for illegal recruitment. she proferred no explanation. by the mere expedient of a unilateral declaration in a contract. The NLRC dismissed the appeal finding that Sunflower is an independent contractor.. On the other hand. On Rodolfo·s reliance on Señoron. then appealed before the NLRC. rendered services to SMC.. the Court of Appeals reversed NLRC·s decision on the ground that the agreement between SMC and Sunflower showed a clear intent to abstain from establishing an employer-employee relationship. Aballa et al. building. determinative of the parties· relationship. she could have advised them to directly pay the same to the agency. A party cannot dictate. On appeal.. machineries. ISSUE: Whether or not Aballa et al. rather it is the totality of the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case. the principal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees. to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. true. It is the totality of the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case. 461 SCRA 392 (2005).

All the foregoing considerations affirm by more than substantial evidence the existence of an employeremployee relationship between SMC and Aballa et al. denied all the allegations. that Sunace continually communicated with the foreign "principal" (sic) and therefore was aware of and had consented to the execution of the extension of the contract is misplaced. They should thus be awarded differential pay corresponding to the difference between the wages and benefits given them and those accorded SMC·s other regular employees. Since Aballa et al. the alleged continuous communication was with the Taiwanese broker Wang. Hence. Sunace. SMC. Parenthetically. they should be deemed regular employees of the latter and as such are entitled to all the benefits and rights appurtenant to regular employment. the work assigned to Aballa et al.And from the job description provided by SMC itself. she filed a complaint against Sunace. to appear on February 38 . and her Taiwanese employer before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). not with the foreign employer. The message does not provide evidence that Sunace was privy to the new contract executed after the expiration on February 1. She alleges that she was underpaid and was jailed for three months in Taiwan. its apparent role having been merely to recruit persons to work for SMC. that they are considered directly related to the principal business of the employer has been jurisprudentially recognized. the filing of this appeal. who were engaged in shrimp processing performed tasks usually necessary or desirable in the aquaculture business of SMC. since the telefax message is dated February 21. the foreign principal directly negotiated with the employee and entered into a new and separate employment contract. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION et al. it is safe to assume that it was sent to enlighten Sunace who had been directed. ISSUE: Whether or not the 2-year extension of Montehermozo·s employment was made with the knowledge and consent of Sunace HELD: Contrary to the Court of Appeals finding. When Montehermozo returned to the Philippines. 2000. Furthermore. She further alleges that the 2-year extension of her employment contract was with the consent and knowledge of Sunace. it was just an information given to Sunace that Montehermozo had taken already her savings from her foreign employer and that no deduction was made on her salary. was directly related to the aquaculture operations of SMC. As for janitorial and messengerial services.) There is an implied revocation of an agency relationship when after the terminatio n of the original employment contract. free from the control and supervision of its principal. 1998 of the original contract. J. It contains nothing about the extension or Sunace·s consent thereto. The finding of the Court of Appeals solely on the basis of the telefax message written by Wang to Sunace. on the other hand. Respondent Divina Montehermozo is a domestic helper deployed to Taiwan by Sunace International Management Services (Sunace) under a 12-month contract. After the expiration of the contract. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Montehermozo and found Sunace liable thereof. INC. Montehermozo continued her employment with her Taiwanese employer for another 2 years. 2000. by Summons issued on February 15. Such employment was made with the assistance of Taiwanese broker Edmund Wang. The National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed the labor arbiter·s decision. Wang. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES. Sunflower did not carry on an independent business or undertake the performance of its service contract according to its own manner and method. 480 SCRA 146 (2006). v. That Sunace and the Taiwanese broker communicated regarding Montehermozo·s allegedly withheld savings does not necessarily mean that Sunace ratified the extension of the contract. As can be seen from that letter communication.

Sunace. as Sunace correctly points out. their assigns. after the termination of the original employment contract. 2000 for a mandatory conference following Montehermozo·s filing of the complaint on February 14. [Sunace] cannot profess ignorance of such an extension as obviously. There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the 2year employment contract extension. (THIGCI). its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack and may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation. As the New Civil Code provides. the minutes of ratification. or by stipulation or by provision of law. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS INTERNATIONAL GOLF CLUB INCORPORATED v.) Misrepresentation. THIGCI opposed the petition of THEU on the ground that out of 192 signatories to the petition. The grounds for cancellation of union registration are provided for under Article 239 of the Labor Code. On appeal. it cannot be said to be privy thereto. dealing directly with third persons. filed a petition for certification election before the DOLE Mediation-Arbitration Unit.28. two of the grounds are 1. The others were supervisors. As such. false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto. Respondent Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union (THEU)-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO). Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Undersecretary and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed Med Arbiter·s decision and ordered that supervisory employees and nonemployees could simply be removed from the roster of rank-and-file membership. TAGAYTAY HIGHLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION-PGTWO 395 SCRA 638 (2003). and heirs. The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent. except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature. the foreign principal directly negotiated with Montehermozo and entered into a new and separate employment contract in Taiwan. there was an implied revocation of its agency relationship with its foreign principal when. Respecting the decision of Court of Appeals following as agent of its foreign principal. AWOL and employees. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot.) After a certificate of registration is issued to a union. a misapplication of the theory of imputed knowledge. resigned. and the list of 39 . its legal personality cannot be subject to collateral attack. be imputed to its agent Sunace. J. only 71 were actual rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in holding that supervisory employees and non-employees could simply be removed from THEU·s roster of rank-and-file membership instead of resolving the legitimacy of union·s status HELD: After a certificate of registration is issued to a union. the act of its principal extending [Montehermozo·s] employment contract necessarily bound it. a legitimate labor organization representing majority of the rank-and-file employees of petitioner Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club Inc. it and its "owner" cannot be held solidarily liable for any of Montehermozo·s claims arising from the 2-year employment extension. Contracts take effect only between the parties. The DOLE Med-Arbiter issued an order to the hold the certification election among the rank-and-file employees of THIGCI. therefore. Furthermore. it too is a misapplication. Article 1924 of the New Civil Code states that the agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent. It may be questioned only in an independent petition for cancellation. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. not the other way around. to the principal. employer. while some others are employees from a different corporation. 2000. terminated.

the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a valid and just cause. ISSUES: Whether or not Hollero was illegally dismissed by U-Bix HELD: U-Bix failed to discharge the burden of proof that Hollero·s dismissal is for a valid and just cause In termination cases. or failure to subject these documents together with the list of the newly elected/appointed officers and their postal addresses within thirty (30) days from election. or other documentary evidence attesting to these grounds could have readily been presented to support the allegations but none was. 40 . Hollero also filed a complaint against U-Bix for illegal dismissal. the Court finds that U-Bix and Bravo failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid dismissal.S U-Bix. attendance records. minutes of the election of officers. managerial employees are also entitled to security of tenure and cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time and without cause as reasonably established in an appropriate investigation. false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections (a) and (c) of Article 239 of above-quoted Article 239 of the Labor Code. The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not among the grounds for cancellation. citing Hollero·s supposed pattern of tardiness. Hollero was hired as a management trainee and was eventually promoted to facilities manager by U-Bix Corporation (U-Bix). Training otherwise she shall reimburse U-BIX CORPORATION for all costs (prorated) and expenses which U-BIX CORPORATION incurred for her (Hollero's) training in the U. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed but subsequently denied by NLRC. Daily time records. Hollero and three other employees were later sent to the United States for two months of training for a newly acquired franchise. neglect of duties and lack of interest. It dismissed Hollero·s complaint for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision declaring that the dismissal of Hollero is valid and legal and ordered her to pay U-Bix the reimbursement of her training. Valerie Anne H. U-Bix failed to substantiate their allegations of Hollero·s habitual absenteeism. and lack of interest. the NLRC reversed the LA·s decision. absences. having been validly issued a certificate of registration.members who took part in the ratification. Hollero being a manager did not excuse them from observing such procedural requirements. VALERIE ANNE H. should be considered to have already acquired juridical personality which may not be assailed collaterally. J. While an employer enjoys a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial employees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court·s decision. On appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Before she left. HOLLERO 570 SCRA 373 (2008). In the case at bar. U-BIX CORPORATION and EDILBERTO B. false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers. Subsequently. U-Bix failed to comply with the procedural due process of dismissing an employee In another vein.) Misrepresentation. the list of voters. neglect of duties. THEU. HOLLERO shall remain in the employ of U -BIX CORPORATION for a period of five (5) years from completion of her U. BRAVO v.S. 2. The merits of a complaint for illegal dismissal do not depend on its prayer but on whether the employer discharges its burden of proving that the dismissal is valid. U-Bix then filed against Hollero before the Labor Arbiter for the reimbursement of training expenses and damages. unless such inclusion is due to misrepresentation. she signed a contract with U-Bix which reads that VALERIE ANNE H. habitual tardiness.) An employer who seeks to dismiss an employee must afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires . terminated her employment for loss of trust and confidence. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales.

The notice does not inform outright the employee that an investigation will be conducted on the charges particularized therein which. UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW 593 SCRA 663 (2009). present her evidence. 8. Art. service award (Art. v. X). the Court held that '[a]mple opportunity' connotes every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense including legal representation .500 is to be allocated for individual salary increases. In the present case. or rebut the evidence presented against her. 3. the university·s belated claim that the 80% TIP should be taken to mean as covering ALL increases and not merely the salary increases as categorically stated in Sec. It does not apprise Hollero of possible dismissal should her explanation prove unsatisfactory. are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties.2. Carpio Morales. had opportunity to respond to the charge. 10). the parties agreed to include a provision on salary increases based on the incremental tuition fee increases or tuition incremental proceeds (TIP). Art. However. in this case the CBA. 252 of the Labor Code is clear on the matter. UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN.500. 41 . except salary increases. when voluntarily entered into by the parties. bereavement assistance (Sec. leaves (Article IX). the U-Bix and Bravo did not even establish that Hollero received the memorandum. medical and hospitalization benefits (Secs. Moreover. VIII. Art. as it was and is not under any obligation to accept respondent·s demands hook. VIII). X). ISSUES: Whether or not the provisions of the CBA should be applied HELD: It is a familiar and fundamental doctrine in labor law that the CBA is the law between the parties and they are obliged to comply with its provisions. opposed the inclusion of or renegotiated the provision allotting 80% of the TIP to salary increases alone. Neither did U-Bix and Bravo show that they conducted a hearing or conference during which Hollero. Besides. scholarship grants and tuition fee discounts given by the university should not be deducted from the TIP. with the assistance of counsel if she so desired. Art. for Hollero was not given the opportunity to avail herself of counsel. 1996 did not satisfy the hearing requirement. the parties disagreed whether or not the term salary increases includes other increases in benefits received by the employee. The present petition questions only the interpretation of the CBA provision by the appellate court. 1). The meeting with Hollero on December 23.5). Thus. the university could have. without mentioning that these will likewise be sourced from the TIP. 3. line and sinker. and signing bonus (Sec. Article 277(b) of the Labor Code mandates that an employer who seeks to dismiss an employee must afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative if he so desires. 6. Art. The Voluntary Arbiter held that the salary increase shall be paid out of 80% of the TIP. should it be higher than P1. A collective bargaining agreement. becomes the law between them. Sec. INC. J. the literal meaning of their stipulations shall control. The CBA does not speak of any other benefits or increases which would be covered by the employees· share in the TIP. VIII of the CBA does not lie. 4 and 5. It does not contain a plain statement of the charges of malfeasance or misfeasance nor categorically state the effect on her employment if the charges are proven to be true. during the CBA negotiations. VIII. if proven. In the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between University of San Agustin and its Employees Union. The CBA reflects the incorporation of different provisions to cover other benefits such as Christmas bonus (Art. will result to her dismissal. The appellate court sustained the interpretation of the CBA but revised TIP computation. Art. Expounding on this provision. Sec. A reading of the provisions of the CBA shows that the parties agreed that 80% of the TIP or at the least the amount of P1. educational benefits (Sec. If the terms of a contract.

reference to the labor code was only for the determination of the solidary liability of the petitioner to the respondent where no employer-employee relation exists. ISSUE: Whether or not the DOLE Secretary can exercise jurisdiction over decisions of Regional Directors involving complaints for recovery of wages HELD: Neither the Ubanes· contention nor the SSS· is impressed with merit. v. SSS filed an appeal to the Secretary of Labor who later on set aside the order of the Regional Director. it is within the realm of civil law and jurisdiction belongs to the regular courts. J. which has jurisdiction to resolve the issue in the case. It is well settled in law and jurisprudence that where no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code. 42 . but the latter is not proscribed from granting higher or additional benefits if it so desires. had full knowledge of the contents thereof. Absent any proof that the university·s consent was vitiated by fraud. Urbanes requested SSS for an upward adjustment of their contract rate in compliance with the mandated wage increases. While the resolution of the issue involves the application of labor laws.) When the relief sought is not under the Labor Code but for payment of a sum of money and damages on a breach of contract. be giving more than 80% of the TIP as its personnel·s share in the tuition fee increase. the security agency filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against the principal or client Lapanday for the upward adjustment of the contract rate in accordance with Wage Order Nos. mistake or duress. the university·s remedy lies not in the Court·s invalidating the provision. While. not the civil courts. The Regional Director of the DOLENCR issued an order in favor of Urbanes. Urbanes filed an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court stating that the Secretary of Labor does not have jurisdiction to review appeals from decisions of the Regional Director over complaints for recovery of wages when it should have been appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. Urbanes agreed to provide security services to Social Security Systems (SSS). It is axiomatic that labor laws setting employee benefits only mandate the minimum that an employer must comply with. it is presumed that it entered into the CBA voluntarily. 129 of the Labor Code should be applied. whether as an act of generosity or by virtue of company policy or a CBA. in effect. 5 and 6. Petitioner Placido O. During the pendency of their agreement. The action is within the realm of civil law hence jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular courts. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 397 SCRA 531 (2003).The records are thus bereft of any showing that the university had made it clear during the CBA negotiations that it intended to source not only the salary increases but also the increases in other employee benefits from the 80% of the TIP. SSS ignored the request which led Urbanes to pull out his agency·s services and to subsequently file a complaint against SSS for the implementation of the wage increase. Lapanday argued that it is the National Labor Relations Commission. In its complaint. In that case. JR. 128. not Art. on the other hand. The Court ruled in Lapanday that the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present case. it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction. contends that Art. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. private respondent is not seeking any relief under the Labor Code but seeks payment of a sum of money and damages on account of petitioner's alleged breach of its obligation under their Guard Service Contract. other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement. and was aware of its commitments under the contract. in following to the letter the subject CBA provision the petitioner will. Court of Appeals instructs so. as it would appear in this case. Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation v. SSS. PLACIDO O. URBANES. but in the parties· clarifying the same in their subsequent CBA negotiations. it involving the enforcement of wage adjustment and other benefits due the agency·s security guards as mandated by several wage orders.

ISSUE: Whether or not the written notice posted by [Galaxie] on the company bulletin board sufficiently complies with the notice requirement under Article 283 of the Labor Code. GALAXIE STEEL WORKERS UNION (GSWU-NAFLU-KMU). In fine. Galaxie Steel Workers Union and Galaxie employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. and not because of any alleged anti-union position. v. But even assuming arguendo that Urbanes· complaint were filed with the proper forum. It thereafter filed a written notice with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) informing the latter of its intended closure and the consequent termination of its employees effective August 31.. THIRD DIVISION. the relief sought has to do with the enforcement of the contract between him and the SSS which was deemed amended by virtue of Wage Order No. underpayment of wages. J. NCR-03. the proper forum for the resolution of which is the civil courts. The purpose of the written notice is to inform the employees of the specific date of termination or closure of business operations. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. The Labor Arbiter. The security guards in fact have filed a complaint with the NLRC against Urbanes· relative to. RAMY GALLEGO v. NCR-03. for lack of cause of action it must be dismissed. BAYER PHILIPPINES INC. each case to be determined by i ts own facts. the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be considered. It posted the notice of closure on the corporate bulletin board. (Carpio Morales. 1999. 594 SCRA 730 (2009). J. On September 8. On account of serious business losses which occurred in 1997 up to mid-1999 totaling around P127. et al. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Court of Appeals held that: It is only when the contractor pays the increases mandated that it can claim an adjustment from the principal to cover the increases payable to the security guards. the liability of the SSS to reimburse Urbanes· arises only if and when Urbanes pays his employee-security guards the increases mandated by Wage Order No. GALAXIE STEEL CORPORATION and RICARDO CHENG 504 SCRA 692 (2006). unfair labor practice. among other things. The records do not show that Urbanes· has paid the mandated increases to the security guards. and all the features of the relationship assessed. In order to meet the foregoing purpose. HELD: The mere posting on the company bulletin board does not meet the requirement under Article 283 of serving a written notice on the workers. The Court in Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation v. 1999. et al.) In distinguishing between permissible job contracting and prohibited labor -only contracting.000. 43 . Galaxie Steel Workers Union decided to close down its business operations.00. even if Urbanes filed the complaint on his and also on behalf of the security guards. and must be served upon them at least one month before the date of effectivity to give them sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements. it having merely posted a notice on the company bulletin board. The controversy subject of the case at bar is thus a civil dispute. The workers· union and employees contend that Galaxie did not serve written notices of the closure of business operations upon them. and money claims against Galaxie.000. NLRC and the Court of Appeals were unanimous in ruling that Galaxie·s closure or cessation of business operations was due to serious business losses or financial reverses.In the case at bar. service of the written notice must be made individually upon each and every employee of the company.) The requirement of the Labor Code that notice shall be served on the workers is not complied with by the mere posting of the notice on the bulletin board.

The Court notes that PRODUCT IMAGE was issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Certificate of Registration Numbered NCR-8-0602-176. but he refused. The Labor Arbiter found BAYER. service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal. a contract with BAYER for the promotion and marketing of BAYER products. Under this arrangement. that it had thoroughly evaluated the requirements submitted by PRODUCT IMAGE before issuing the Certificate of Registration. (BAYER) as crop protection technician. the Court finds substantial evidence to support the finding of the NLRC that PRODUCT IMAGE is a legitimate job contractor. guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of Gallego. In distinguishing between permissible job contracting and prohibited labor-only contracting. Gallego claims that he was directed to submit a resignation latter. P559. this petition. (PRODUCT IMAGE) performing the same tasks as that of a crop protection technician. among the circumstances that establish the status of PRODUCT IMAGE as a legitimate job contractor are: (1) PRODUCT IMAGE had. and (c) the agreement between the principal and contractor or subcontractor assures the contractual employees· entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health standards. the following conditions must be met: (a) the contractor carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes the contract work on his account under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method. Hence. BAYER denied that existence of an employer-employee relationship between BAYER and Gallego since Gallego was actually under the control and supervision of PRODUCT IMAGE.Petitioner Ramy Gallego was contracted by Bayer Philippines Inc. security of tenure. work or. Inc. and (3) PRODUCT IMAGE·s total assets from 1998 to 2000 amounted to P405. free exercise of the right to self-organization. free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of his work except as to the results thereof. an independent contractor. ISSUES: Whether or not PRODUCT IMAGE is a labor-only contractor and BAYER should be deemed Gallego·s principal employer HELD: Permissible job contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to farm out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance of a specific job. Further. Believing himself to be illegally dismissed. BAYER reemployed Gallego through Product Image and Marketing Services. or service within a definite or predetermined period. since the DOLE is the agency primarily responsible for regulating the business of independent job contractors. it carries with it the presumption that it was issued in the regular performance of official duty. his co-workers allegedly spread rumors there that he was not anymore connected with BAYER. work. 44 . the Court can presume. When Gallego·s employment came to a halt. He was later on transferred to Luzon.000 to answer for any claim of its employees for unpaid wages and other benefits that may arise out of the implementation of its contract with BAYER. and social welfare benefits. PRODUCT IMAGE cannot thus be considered a labor-only contractor. and all the features of the relationship assessed.Gallego·s bare assertions fail to rebut this presumption.639. Independently of the DOLE·s Certification. he filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) claiming he is entitled for reinstatement. et al. After a few years. in t e h absence of evidence to the contrary. which was dismissed. and etc. the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be considered.897. The DOLE certificate having been issued by a public officer. respectively. (2) PRODUCT IMAGE has an independent business and provides services nationwide to big companies such as Ajinomoto Philippines and Procter and Gamble Corporation. The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. during the period in question. each case to be determined by its own facts. regardless of whether such job. PRODUCT IMAGE also posted a bond in the amount of P100. backwages. moreover. Gallego then appealed to the Court of Appeals via Certiorari.728. In the case at bar. and P644. (b) the contractor has substantial capital or investment.

Artiaga sent a letter to SUMC stating her wish to resign from said post. Artiaga filed a Complaint for constructive dismissal against SU. three years after she sent such letter.GLORIA ARTIAGA v. in which SUMC accepted. SILIMAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER/ SILIMAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION. Consequently. On appeal. He filed a pro-forma complaint on March 4. And it sent Artiaga a Notice requiring her to explain her side and placing her under preventive suspension. otherwise. DUMALAOG 561 SCRA 675 (2008). SUMC alleged that there was no constructive dismissal. and records within her control. Artiaga complied with SUMC·s request by giving such letter of explanation and at the same time tendered her resignation. Inc. files. a petition was filed before the Court of Appeals. NATIONAL LABOR COMMISSION and WARLITO E. Dumalaog was employed as a cook on board vessels plying overseas. its then president Jesus Candava. It found that there were discrepancies in the transactions under Artiaga·s control and supervision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for failure to attach to the petition all material documents and for defective verification and certification. 45 . SUMC then filed a Petition before the Court of Appeals. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. On the other hand.) Constructive dismissal does not exist when an employee furnished the employer a letter signifying his resignation. INC. Artiaga presented no evidence to substantiate her claim. and its foreign principal Norman Shipping Services. Subsequently. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. the NLRC upheld Artiaga·s version and found her to have been constructively dismissed. Artiaga·s claim thus fails. finding that Artiaga was constructively dismissed.. SUMC·s evidence of Artiaga·s irregular acts is documented. On appeal. Artiaga·s claim that SMUC·s pieces of evidence were fabricated does not persuade. ISSUES: Whether or not Artiaga was constructively dismissed HELD: In reversing the Labor Arbiter·s decision. and/or JESUS CANDAVA and NORMAN SHIPPING SERVICES v. Artiaga·s letter-explanation cum resignation is self-explanatory. she was also preventively suspended for 30 days and requested to turn over all monies. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of legal and factual basis. Against the documentary evidence of SUMC. 585 SCRA 552 (2009). J. to what matters she was explaining therein? J-PHIL MARINE. The CA reversed the NLRC decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter·s decision.2002 before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against J-Phil Marine. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Worked as a cook on aboard vessels plying overseas. with a full understanding of what he was entering into. It was shown that SUMC wrote Artiaga requiring her to explain in writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against her.) A compromise agreement is valid as long as the consideration is reasonable and the employee signed the w aiver voluntarily. however. SUMC and the Foundation. J. Petitioner Gloria Artiaga was hired by respondent Siliman University Medical Center (SUMC) as Credit and Collection officer. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside the Labor Arbiter·s Decision. Warlito E. INC. Artiaga·s explanationresignation letter unquestionably shows that she received the notices referred to.

Shangri-la is required to hire full-time registered nurse. Jeromie D. Pepito·s appeal and dismissed Escasinas and Singco complaint for lack of merit. J. the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work. insist that under Article 157 of the Labor Code. Shangri-la claimed that Escasinas and Singco were not its employees but of Dr.) The requirements for the existence of an employer -employee relationship are different from the requisites for the existence of an independent and permissible c ontractor relationship. granted Shangri-la·s and Dr. manner and terms of payment. ISSUES: Whether or not Escasinas and Singco are regular employees of Shangri-la and Dr. the nature and extent of the work. The circumstances of this case indicate that Dumalaoag's counsel is acting beyond the scope of his authority in questioning the compromise agreement. hence their engagement should be deemed as regular employment. the respondent entered into a compromise agreement and signed Quitclaims and Release. the case was dismissed. The acts of an agent are deemed the acts of the principal only if the agent acts within the scope of his authority.While the case was pending in the Supreme Court. the skill required. The National Labor Relations Commission. PEPITO 580 SCRA 604 (2009). SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. the employee's counsel need not be present at the time of the signing of the compromise agreement. the duty to supply the premises. 19 and 20 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code. finding that no employer-employee relationship exists between Shangri-la and petitioners. Escasinas and Singco filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for regularization. JESSICA J. underpayment of wages. the control of the premises. SHANGRI-LA·S MACTAN ISLAND RESORT and DR. Accordingly. Escasinas and Singco. materials and labor. the employer's power with respect to the hiring. Pepito to work in her clinic at respondent Shangri-La·s Mactan Island Resort (Shangri-La). Jessica Joyce R. on the other hand. JEROMIE D. whom it retained via Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) pursuant to Article 157 of the Labor Code. contrary to Dumalaoag's contention. ISSUES: Whether or not the compromise agreement entered into by the respondent. and the mode. Escasinas and Evan Rigor Singco were registered nurses. the term and duration of the relationship. Pepito HELD: The existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship is generally established by considering the following determinants: whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business. with a full understanding of what he was entering into. Dr. firing and payment of the contractor's workers. tools. 46 . ESCASINAS and EVAN RIGOR SINGCO v. Pepito for her part claimed that Escasinas and Singco were already working for the previous retained physicians of Shangri-la before she was retained. is valid HELD: A compromise agreement is valid as long as the consideration is reasonable and the employee signed the waiver voluntarily. The same has been subscribed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter. non-payment of holiday pay. claiming that they are regular employees of Shangri-La. The relation of attorney and client is in many respects one of agency. Pepito is a labor-only contractor for she has no license or business permit and no business name registration as mandated by Sec. Pepito. They maintain that Dr. appliances. engaged by respondent Dr. Thus. The labor arbiter declared Escasinas and Singco to be regular employees of Shangri-la. All that is required for the compromise to be deemed voluntarily entered into is personal and specific individual consent. and the general rules of agency apply to such relation.R. however. night shift differential and 13th month pay against Shangrila et al. without his counsel.. the control and supervision of the work to another.

as well as value added taxes and withholding taxes. Against the above-listed determinants. she was made registrar and secondary school teacher. Contrary to Escasinas and Singco contention.00 monthly retainer fee and 70% share of the service charges from Shangri-la·s guests who avail of the clinic services. Dr. and (4) the power to control the worker's conduct. of which she was a member. and damages. and not the employee manual being followed by Shangri-la·s regular workers. as Shangri-la does not control how the work should be performed by Escasinas and Singco. holiday pay. service incentive leave. After one year of employment. with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration. Pepito would report Escasinas and Singco as workers. She alleged that she was allowed to go on leave. 157. and found that she was illegally dismissed. It is thus presumed that said document. the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal. 13th month pay. the maintenance of a clinic and provision of medical services to its employees is required under Art. allowances. LABADAN v. tithes to the Seventh Day Adventist church. LILIA P. illegal deductions. it is not Escasinas and Singco·s employer.) While in cases of illegal dismissal. the Court holds that Dr. service incentive leave. With regard to the charge for illegal deduction. group life. (2) power of dismissal. to which Escasinas and Singco gave their conformity and in which they acknowledged their co-terminus employment status. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Labadan. and holiday pay. Forest Hills hired a temporary employee to accomplish the needed reports. Labadan (Labadan) was hired by Forest Hills Mission Academy (Forest Hills) as an elementary school teacher in 1989. governs how they perform their respective tasks and responsibilities. group personal accident insurance and life/death insurance for the staff with minimum benefit payable at 12 times the employee·s last drawn salary. the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a valid or authorized cause.On the other hand. Labadan filed a complaint against Forest Hills for illegal dismissal. Forest Hills claimed that the Seventh Day Adventist church requires its members to pay tithes equivalent to 10% of their salaries. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. existence of an employer. As to payment of wages. sourced from her P60. 575 SCRA 262 (2008). SSS contributions and other benefits of the staff. and allowances. (3) the payment of wages by whatever means. non-payment of overtime pay. Lilian L. As regards the non-payment of overtime pay. With respect to the supervision and control of the nurses and clinic staff. The National 47 . Pepito is the one who underwrites the following: salaries. That Shangri-la provides the clinic premises and medical supplies for use of its employees and guests do not necessarily prove that respondent doctor lacks substantial capital and investment. classes for the school year were already underway. In fine. its extension was impliedly approved by the school principal because Labadan received no warning or reprimand. and albeit she had exceeded her approved leave period. the various office directives issued by Shangri-la·s officers do not imply that it is Shangri-la·s management and not Dr. 13th month pay. allowances.000. In 2003. J. pay their SSS premium as well as their wages if they were not indeed her employees. Besides.employee relationship is established by the presence of the following determinants: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers. Because of Labadan·s failure to report to work despite promises to do so. Clinic Policies and Employee Manual claimed to have been prepared by Dr. FOREST HILLS ACADEMY et al. and she was not paid overtime pay for overtime service. It is unlikely that Dr. which are not directly related to Shangri-la·s principal business ² operation of hotels and restaurants. and was in fact retained in the payroll. Pepito exists. and dismissed her claims for overtime pay. Forest Hills noted that petitioner proffered no evidence to support the same. Labadan further alleged that since 1990. holiday pay. holiday pay. and that Labadan never questioned the deduction of the tithe from her salary. five days service incentive leave pay. and that her SSS contributions have not been remitted. have been illegally deducted from her salary. Pepito is a legitimate independent contractor. Forest Hills claims that Labadan was permitted to go on leave for two weeks but did not return for work after the expiration of the period granted. When Labadan did return for work. 13th month pay. Pepito who exercises control over them or that Shangri-la has control over how the doctor and the nurses perform their work. it is not disputed that a document.

1995 up to May 15. Labadan argues." Labadan. 1959. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. as the NLRC noted. The records do not show that petitioner was dismissed from the service. he no longer reported for work. It was in 1978 when Manioso was found to be suffering from Hypertensive Vascular Disease. Region IV.) Benefits due an employee due to work -related sickness shall be provided until he becomes gainfully employed. the employee must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM 457 SCRA 607 (2005).1995 when Manioso compulsory retired from the government service on reaching 65 years of age and after serving almost 36 years. Manioso was already in and out the hospital for the purpose of having tests conducted on him and to be hospitalized on several instances. Labadan·s affidavit and those of her former colleagues. Labadan then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. she could have resumed her work as registrar had she really wanted to continue working with Forest Hills. 1995 to January 14. she was still considered a member of the Forest Hills faculty which retained her in its payroll. 48 . this petition. the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal is for a valid or authorized cause. that she was constructively dismissed when Forest Hills merged her class with another "so much that when she reported back to work. shall be suspended is if the employee becomes gainfully employed.Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter·s decision with regard to the finding of illegal dismissal. by her own admission. MANIOSO v. And under Article 192 (b) of the same Code. 1996 commensuarate to the degree of his disability at the time of his retirement. an amount equivalent to the monthly income benefit. It bears noting that petitioner simultaneously held the positions of secondary school teacher and registrar and.The GSIS disapproved petitioner·s request upon the ground that he was already paid the maximum monthly income benefit for eight (8) months covering the period from May 15. or recovers from his PTD or fails to be present for examination at least once a year upon notice by the GSIS. this Petition for Review on Certiorari. but not exceeding five. but gave no particulars on when and how she was dismissed. she has no more claims to hold and no more work to do. plus ten percent thereof for each dependent child. 1959. the GSIS·s ruling was also affirmed. or until his recovery or death. BERNARDINO S. exceeded her approved leave. ISSUE: Whether or not the Manioso is entitled to Permanent Total Disability Benefits HELD: Under Article 192 (a) of the Labor Code. He was promoted to the position of Senior Bookkepeer of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. J. They in fact show that despite petitioner·s absence from July 2001 to March 2002 which. however. for each month until his death. On appeal. Bernardino Manioso is an Accounting Clerk I who started working at the Budget Commission on July 13. Hence. which she attached to her Position Paper. ISSUES: Whether or not Labadan was illegally dismissed by Forest Hills HELD: While in cases of illegal dismissal. which was dismissed by the same. classes were already ongoing for School Year 2002-2003. Since then. Manila. failed to refute Forest Hills· claim that when she expressed her intention to resume teaching. the only time the income benefits. Hence. His sick leave covering the said period was duly approved. any employee who contacts sickness or sustains an injury resulting in PTD shall. which are guaranteed for five years. merely attested that she was dismissed from her job without valid cause. however. From January 11. be paid by the [GSIS] during such disability. Manioso filed with the GSIS for additional benefits claiming that the ailments for which he was hospitalized several times in 1997 developed from his work related illnesses. He was transferred to the Bureau of Forestry with the same position on August 10.

Sometime in 1997. the employee shall be given a service benefit equivalent to one month per year of service. in Republic Act No. or in the absence thereof. Retirement pay. the company shall provide its employee a separation pay equivalent to one (1) month·s pay per year of service. on the other hand. were entitled to additional retirement benefits HELD: Separation pay has been defined as the amount that an employee receives at the time of his severance and is designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period he is looking for another employment. 236 employees filed complaints against MPI for payment of retirement pay equivalent to one-month salary per year of service. under the same circumstances. etc. they were entitled to a separation pay of one-month salary per year of service. which both grant one month·s pay for every year of service. is deprived of the benefits due him for work-related ailments that resulted in his Permanent Total Disability. Manioso's retirement from the service does not prevent him from availing of the PTD benefits to which he is entitled. et al. IMELDA B. The NLRC. et al. and not due to retirement program. Motorola Philippines. the same having been included in the cash component of the separation/redundancy package paid to them." On the other hand. the filing of this appeal. et al. J. had already received such one-month pay. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which ruled In favor of Ambrocio et al. of Ambrocio. however. or until his recovery or death.) When a company provides a Redundancy Program in favor of the dismissed employees. et al. the employment contract or company policy. It thus offered to its affected employees a redundancy/separation package consisting of separation pay equivalent to two months· salary per year of service. a government employee who had served for thirty six (36) years. v. insisted that Ambrocio. INC. The Labor Arbiter found MPI liable to Ambrocio et al.As Manioso's medical records show that the ailments that he suffered in 1997 are complications that resulted from his work-related ailments. et al. inclusive of any service benefit eligibility under the Retirement Plan. After availing the separation package. on the other hand. as amended. AMBROCIO. III-B of the Plan on which of Ambrocio. for the payment of "retirement pay service benefits" since retirement pay is separate and distinct from separation pay. presupposes that the employee entitled to it has reached the compulsory retirement age or has rendered the required number of years as provided for in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). and is recoverable only in the instances enumerated under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code. the latter already received what was due them under the law. It would be an affront to justice if Manioso. et al. et al. MPI. 582 SCRA 502 (2009). As correctly ruled by the NLRC. MOTOROLA PHILIPPINES. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. Inc. ISSUES: Whether or not Ambrocio·s. they already received what was due them under the law and in accordance with MPI·s plan. granted MPI·s appeal and dismissed the complaint of Ambrocio. et al. 7641 or the Retirement Law. hence. or in illegal dismissal cases when reinstatement is no longer possible. 'the right to compensation extends to disability due to disease supervening upon and proximately and naturally resulting from compensable injury. when of Ambrocio. et al. benefits due an employee due to work-related sickness shall be provided until he becomes gainfully employed. For as stated earlier.. were paid a separation pay of two months· salary for every year of service under the Redundancy Package. for involuntary separation under MPI·s retirement plan included the service pay benefits. None of these is present in Manioso's case. 49 . Under Sec. Thus. It is admitted that Ambrocio were terminated pursuant to a redundancy. holding that the benefits received by Ambrocio. Ambrocio. insurance policies. Hence. et al. "[i]n case of involuntary separation with the company due to retrenchment/redundancy. rely. by whatever version of MPI·s Retirement Plan would be made applicable. (MPI) decided to close its Parañaque plant in order to consolidate its operations. based on Policy 1215 on which MPI relies. are entitled to a separation pay of one-month salary per year of service.

Dr. Dr. ORTEGA v. the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code govern compensability of work-related disabilities or when there is loss of income due to work-connected or workaggravated injury or illness. Moreover. namely. Ibarra's reliance on jurisprudence on work-connected disability claims insofar as it relates to a demonstration of disability to perform his trade and profession is misplaced. irrespective of whether they arose from or in the course of the employment. Responding to the allegation that the April 2000 physical examination was performed in a short period of time. the benefits under the Social Security Law are intended to provide insurance or protection against the hazards or risks of disability. the proviso of such provisions on the percentage degree of disability applies when there is a related deterioration of the illness previously considered as partial permanent disability. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. Claims under the Labor Code for compensation and under the Social Security Law for benefits are not the same as to their nature and purpose. the evidence indicates that petitioner's condition at the time material to the case does not fall under the enumeration in the above-quoted provisions of the Social Security Law. which the latter granted for total of 23 months. After the expiration of his pension. SSS observed that Ibarra was already granted benefits under the same illness and his physical examination showed no progression of his illness. Rebecca Sison. there is dearth of evidence on the proposition that petitioner's array of illnesses is related to Generalized Arthritis and Partial Ankylosis of the specific body parts. J. On the one hand. this finding was not enough to grant an extension of benefit since Ibarra had already received benefits equivalent to 30% of the body. member of respondent Social Security System (SSS) filed claims for partial permanent disability benefits on account of his illness with SSS. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION and SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM 555 SCRA 53 (2008). the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the SSC order. Petitioner Ibarra Ortega. ISSUE: Whether or not Ibarra can claim under Social Security Law for work connected disability claims insofar as it relates to a demonstration of disability to perform his trade and profession HELD: The conclusion that Ibarra is not entitled to total permanent disability benefits under the Social Security Law was reached after petitioner was examined not just by one but four SSS physicians. a disability is total and permanent under the Labor Code if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days regardless of whether he loses the use of any of his body parts. Ortega then applied for total permanent disability benefits but such application was denied by SSS. it denied Ortega·s claim for entitlement to total permanent disability. the doctor credibly explained that petitioner's movements were already being monitored and evaluated from a distance as part of the examination of his extremities in order to minimize malingering and overacting. The initial physical examination and interview revealed that Ibarra had slight limitation of grasping movement for both hands. as correctly held by the appellate court. Descalzo. According to Dr. inter alia. Tan and Dr. On the other hand.) Claims under the Labor Code for compensation and under the Social Security Law for benefits are not the same as to their nature and purpose. Carlota A. Ortega filed before Social Security Commission (SSC) a petition alleging that SSS ignored the fact that his attending physician diagnosed him of progressed illness. In this case. sickness. 45 Indeed. Dr. Jesus S. SSC took cognizance of the petition and after hearing on the merits.IBARRA P. On appeal. Cruz-Tutaan. And unlike under the Social Security Law. Juanillo Descalzo III. 50 . old age or death. Accordingly. After exhausting administrative remedies.

SECOND DIVISION. the second requirement for a Labor Arbiter to exercise jurisdiction of a ULP is not present. hence. the Union charges SMFI to have promoted less senior employees. specifically the seniority rule. at all events. in that SMFI "appointed less senior employees to positions at its Finance Department. questions why the Court of Appeals came out with a finding that it (SMFI) disregarded the seniority rule under the CBA when its petition before said court merely raised a question of jurisdiction.] and to cease and desist from committing the same unjust discrimination in matters of promotion. to have violated the Job Security provision in the CBA. The NLRC dismissed the complaint. ISSUE: Whether or not complaints for violation of seniority rule under the CBA falls within the Labor Arbiter·s jurisdiction HELD: As for the alleged ULP committed under Article 248 (i). 51 . a ULP over which the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-PTWGO 535 SCRA 133 (2007). SMFI failed to act on the complaint which prompted San Miguel Corporation Employees Union PTWGO (the Union) to filea case with the National Labor Relations Commission against SMFI. SMFI filed a motion to dismiss on the alleged ground that the grievance issue should be resolved in the grievance machinery provided in the collective bargaining. v. be ordered to promote the therein named employees with the corresponding pay increases or adjustment including payment of salary differentials plus attorney' s fees[. (SMFI) brought grievance against Finance Manager Gideo Montesa for discrimination. its President Amadeo Veloso and Montesa. The Court of Appeals having affirmed the NLRC decision finding that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the Union complaint and thus remanding it to the Labor Arbiter for continuation of proc eedings thereon. except those which are gross in character. It may not be seriously disputed that this charge is a gross or flagrant violation of the seniority rule under the CBA. this petition. As reflected in the above-quoted allegations of the Union in its Position Paper. As above-stated. The Union likewise charges SMFI. for violation of a CBA. this Article is qualified by Article 261 of the Labor Code. however. Some employees of San Miguel Foods Inc. provides that violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. thus bypassing others who were more senior and equally or more qualified. Hence. the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC·s decision. shall no longer be treated as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The grievance machinery provision in the CBA is not an economic provision. On appeal. J) Gross or flagrant violation of the seniority rule und er the CBA is an unfair labor practice which the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. consequently intentionally by-passing more senior employees who are deserving of said appointment. however.SAN MIGUEL FOODS INC. (Carpio Morales. the appellate court said finding may be taken to have been made only for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. SMFI. the Union charges SMFI to have violated the grievance machinery provision in the CBA. The Union opposed the motion to dismiss. unfair labor practice and harassment. favouritism. It prayed that SMFI et al.

being manifested by some overt acts. therefore. et al. Catalina in fact acknowledges her dedicated service to its students. Labor Arbiter Pedro C. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION. Tercero filed a complaint before the NLRC Regional Arbitration. Hilaria was awarded a Plaque of Appreciation for thirty years of service and a gratuity pay. Fifteen years thereafter. Catalina College and should be accorded ample support in her twilight years. et al. dismissed the petition. Tercero·s retirement benefits were computed on the basis of fifteen years of service from 1982 to 1997 and her service from 1955 to 1970 was excluded in the computation. with the second element as the more determinative factor. Catalina asserted that she had. CATALINA COLLEGE. the factual findings and conclusion of quasi-judicial agencies such as the NLRC are. being manifested by some overt acts. as Sta. By Decision of October 30. Catalina failed to prove that Tercero had abandoned her position in 1970. against Sta. Catalina then brought the case on certiorari to the CA. Catalina even gave her a Plaque of Appreciation for thirty years of service precisely because of her thirty year continuous service. 416 SCRA 233 (2003). v. She can. J. and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relationship. set aside the Labor Arbiter·s decision. Deducted too was the gratuity pay which was given to her. the employer must show that the employee deliberately and unjustifiably refused to resume his employment without any intention of returning. however. petitioner school was under no obligation to serve a written notice to her. on account of the illness of her mother. Ramos ruled in favor of the petitioner school. she applied for and was granted a one year leave of absence without pay. 1998 . hence. she reached the compulsory retirement age of 65. As a general rule. From the retirement benefits was deducted the amount representing reimbursement of the employer·s contribution to her retirement benefits under the Private Education Retirement Annuity Association (PERAA) which Tercero had already received. Abandonment of work being a just cause for terminating the services of Hilaria. The appellate court however. the Court must of necessity examine the records and the evidence presented to determine which finding should be preferred as more conformable with evidentiary facts. or absence without valid or justifiable reason. her services for Sta. the employeremployee relationship was not severed and. the NLRC. Where as in the present case. Catalina never sent notice to her dismissing her. in 1971. abandoned her employment. Sta. For a valid finding of abandonment. on appeal. accorded great weight and respect and even finality as long as they are supported by substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable man might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Hilaria Tercero (Tercero) was hired as an elementary school teacher at the Sta. On May 1997. or absence without valid or justifiable reason. and (2) a clear intention to sever employer -employee relationship.) For a valid finding of abandonment. the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter. however. two factors must be present: (1) the failure to report for work. she applied anew at petitioner school which hired her. To prove abandonment. Catalina College (Sta. 52 . and that Sta. Sta. Catalina during the period from 1955-1970 should be credited in the computation of her retirement benefits ISSUE: Whether or not Tercero is entitled to the retirement benefits differential computed by the NLRC based on her 29 years of service when she merely rendered 15 continuous years of service prior to her retirement HELD: The Court is not unmindful of Tercero·s rendition of a total of thirty years of teaching in Sta.STA. Sta. two factors must be present: (1) the failure to report for work. Catalina for non-payment of retirement benefits. On appeal. with the second element as the more determinative factor. she had not been heard from by petitioner school. only be awarded with what she is rightfully entitled to under the law. On March 1997. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. After the expiration of her leave of absence. Catalina) in June 1955. In 1982. holding that Sta.

in this case the National Housing Authority. Rosalina appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiter·s decision stating that nothing on record would indicate that the P650. another contract between the parties. (Carpio Morales.00. v. He was therefore presumed dead.00.000. On motion of FIC. demands. Waiver and Quitclaim she is barred from filing any subsequent action against FIC. J. 1669 and 1670.00 paid by PPLICI is separate and distinct from the obligation of the FIC and its principal Huang arising from the employment contract and the release and quitclaim forever barred the filing of any subsequent action against FIC. J. Rosalina thus filed a claim for death benefits with FIC.000. its literal meaning controls. TIONGSON. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY 558 SCRA 56 (2008). respondent Kuo Tung Yu Huang (Huang). During the duration of the contract. subsequently filed before the National Relations Commission (NLRC). would violate the clear provision of Article II. Compensation benefits for illness. causes of action. et al. accident which does not result to death. ISSUE: Whether or not the Release. Rosalina. it approved the NLRC resolution finding no shred of capriciousness or arbitrariness on the part of the NLRC in dismissing her appeal. Section 10 of the employment contract. pursuant to P. The said provision in the employment contract being clear and unambiguous. husband of petitioner Rosalina Tagle (Rosalina). Nos.) When the provisions of the employment contract are clear and unambiguous. Despite efforts to look for Wilfredo·s corpus.. et al. The claim was approved and Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Co. extendible for another year upon mutual agreement of the parties. Section 10 of the employment contract.ROSALINA TAGLE v. Waiver and Quitclaim. but accident does not necessarily result to death. Waiver and Quitclaim executed by Rosalina included the additional labor insurance she is entitled to as provided for in Section 10. SECOND DIVISION. was recruited by respondent Fast International Corporation (FIC) to work as fisherman at Taiwan for its principal. the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint of Rosalina on the ground that by her prior execution of the Release. barring Tagle from claiming other or additional benefits arising from Tagle·s husband·s death-basis of the release of the insurance proceeds to her. Waiver and Quitclaim stating that such would be an absolute bar to any suit that either is now pending or may be henceforth prosecuted concerning claims. the law between the parties. of properties belonging to petitioners Patricia L. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. and partial or total disability are treated separately and differently in the 3-paragraph provision of Article II. the same proved futile. Upon Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). however. Upon receipt by Rosalina of the check.. Tiongson. death. They then executed an employment contract for one year. The two 53 . she accomplished a Release. assuming that one for the purpose was secured. Inc. the fishing vessel boarded by Wilfredo in Taiwan collided with another and thereafter sank. 466 SCRA 521 (2005). Respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) took possession in 1978.000. after receiving insurance benefits for death arising from accident. its literal meaning controls. (PPLICI) issued a check in the amount of P650.) In a situation where a government agency. the determination of just compensation should be reckoned from the date of filing the complaint for expropriation and not from the time of actual taking of the properties. took possession of properties belonging to private individuals for purposes of expropriation and the laws by virtue of which such government agency expropriated the subject properties were subsequently declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. COURT OF APPEALS. etc. a complaint for additional labor insurance in the amount of NT$300. et al.D. PATRICIA I. And it would trifle with the Release. Wilfredo Tagle (Wilfredo). Article II of her deceased husband·s employment contract HELD: Death could be a result of accident. for purposes of expropriation. To uphold Tagle·s claim for additional insurance for accident.

R. an award of a total and permanent disability benefit is in order.D. the appellate court either unwittingly failed to consider or escaped its notice. in their Motion for Reconsideration of its Decision of June 16. He is usually rehired by UPL to serve as one of the seaman in HAL·s vessel as an assistant cook. in its challenged Decision. however. The company doctor found that Francisco is in fact fit to work as a seaman. and/or HOLLAND AMERICA LINE.) The law does not require that the illness should be incurable. INC. Francisco agreed to work again for UPL but did not show up in their office. THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales. 1987. (UPL) in behalf of its principal. Holland America Line (HAL). J. et al. the Order dated June 15. denied petitioners· motion upon the ground that it raised substantially the same issues that were already considered and passed upon in arriving at its decision. 1987. Francisco Beseril (Francisco) was hired by United Philippine Line. FRANCISCO BESERIL 487 SCRA 248 (2006). the just compensation of Tiongson. 54 . 1988 of the then Presiding Judge of the trial court. even before the trial court. the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court·s orders and held that the just compensation should be based on the actual taking of the property in 1978. null and void. despite its recital of the antecedents of the case including Tiongson. 1987. UPL directed Francisco to undergo an examination with their company doctor.P. sustained moves. The appellate court reached that conclusion.·s properties must be determined as of the date of . Nos. 1999. in its above-stated Decision in G. The appellate court·s June 16. that P. for expropriation of parcels of land which were covered by P. However.. No. Vis-a-vis the factual backdrop of the case. 1669 and 1670. 1999. thus. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES. The RTC held that the determination of just compensation of the properties should be reckoned from the date of filing of NHA·s petition or on September 14. . even brought to the appellate court·s attention.D. 1987. Tiongson. Hence. . L-55166 promulgated on May 21. These admissions. on appeal. by resolution of October 7. the fact that they had called the trial court·s attention to NHA·s allegationadmissions in the body and prayer of its petition. and thus concluded that the parties admitted that [NHA] took possession of the subject properties as early as 1978. et al. et al.D. But the appellate court. ISSUE: Whether or not just compensation should be reckoned from the time of the taking of the property or on the filing of the complaint H ELD: In declaring. 1669 pursuant to which NHA took possession of the properties of petitioners in 1978 was unconstitutional and. in maintaining that the reckoning of just compensation should be from the date of filing of the petition for expropriation on September 14. 1999 decision glaringly shows. INC. Relying on the findings of the doctor. On September 14. One of Francisco·s doctors found that he was unfit to work. the NHA filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against Tiongson. that the determination of just compensation should be reckoned from NHA·s taking of the properties in 1978. When he was brought to Manila he underwent several rehabilitation and physical therapy. v. the filing of [NHA·s] complaint on September 14. In the middle of his service he started to feel chest pain and was brought ashore and underwent Triple Heart By-Pass. No. what is important is that he was unable to perform his customa ry work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability. The earlier-quoted allegations of the body and prayer in NHA·s Petition for Expropriation filed before the RTC constitute judicial admissions of NHA³that it possessed the subject properties until this Court·s declaration. 1987. therefore. Francisco and his counsel demanded for disability pay from his employer UPL and/or HAL. Inc. this petition. that the matter of judicial admissions of NHA in the body and prayer in its petition were not considered by it. the appellate court simply relied on Annex C of NHA·s petition before it.·s were thereafter declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

reimbursement of medical expenses. The NLRC modified the decision of the Labor Arbiter and deleted the award for disability benefits. this petition. Barraquio requested medical assistance and was diagnosed with suspected ischemic heart disease and hypertension. respondent was unable to work as a chief mate for almost three years. Odyssey Maritime. this information does not alter the fact that as a result of his illness.Francisco filed a complaint in the NLRC against ULP and HAL claiming disability benefits. chest pains. 55 . On appeal. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of Barraquio finding the foreign principal and manning agency liable to pay to complainant his money claims. Barraquios wrote a letter to the captain informing them that he has decided to quit his job and will be joining the next disembarkation crew. J. UPL tried to contest the above findings by showing that respondent was able to work again as a chief mate in March 2001. finding Barraquio·s resignation voluntary. and that medical findings that he was fit to sail is proof that his condition developed while on board. A year later. respondent filed a complaint for non-payment of 120 days sickness allowance under Section 20 (B) paragraph 2 of the Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers. What is important is that he was unable to perform his customary work for more than 120 days which constitutes permanent total disability. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint. or a few months after his rehabilitation does not matter. The law does not require hat the illness should be incurable. 1998. legal interest. hired Jesus Barraquio (Barraquio ) as chief cook on board a vessel for a period of ten (10) months. SECOND DIVISION (Carpio Morales. While the vessel was docked in Korea. et al.) Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment. 1998 under UPL's account) on September 22. headaches and irregular sleep leading to hypertension. loss of earning and capacity and damages. On appeal. PTE. He signed a Statement of Account acknowledging set-off of his vacation leave pay from the cost of finding his replacement and the cost of repatriation. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC Decision in light of the observation that Barraquio·s hypertension probably developed while on board the vessel ISSUES: Whether or not Barraquio voluntarily resigned HELD: From a considered review. through Virgen Shipping Corporation. ISSUE: Whether or not Disability Benefit should be awarded to Francisco Beseril HELD: That Francisco was found to be "fit to return to work" by Clinica Manila (where he underwent regular cardiac rehabilitation program and physical therapy from January 15 to May 28. Ltd. the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that the disability benefit should be awarded Hence. The Labor Arbiter awarded Francisco full amount of the benefits and damages. he suffered dizziness. the Court finds that respondent·s resignation was voluntary. which is to help the employee in making ends meet at the time when he is unable to work VIRGEN SHIPPING CORPORATION. Barraquio alleged that he was forced to execute the request for disembarkation for fear that his health would worsen. v. It is of no consequence that respondent was cured after a couple of years. ULP and HAL contended that there should be no grant of Disability Benefit because their company physician certified that he is fit to go back to work. disability benefits. and damages. An award of a total and permanent disability benefit would be germane to the purpose of the benefit. BARRAQUIO 597 SCRA 411 (2009). Nonetheless. JESUS B. Barraquio alleged that due to constant verbal abuse from the ship master.

Barraquio·s resignation can be gleaned from the unambiguous terms of his letter to Captain Cristino. the Gleneagles Maritime Medical Centre doctor who treated respondent in May 2000 for abscess in his left hand had noted Barraquio·s [h]istory of hypertension for 3 years. as indicated above. Bare allegations of threat or force do not constitute substantial evidence to support a finding of forced resignation.Resignation is defined as the voluntary act of an employee who finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service and he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment. 56 . the Korean physician did not make any recommendation as to Barraquio·s bill of health for petitioners to assume that he was fit for repatriation. Moreover. Ischemic heart disease cannot develop in a short span of time that Barraquio served as chief cook for petitioners. That such claim was proferred a year later all the more renders his contention bereft of merit. In fact. Barraquio·s bare claim that he was forced to execute his resignation letter deserves no merit.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful