This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
152012 FACTS: “[Respondent] subsequently received the amount of twenty-three thousand, one hundred fifty-three Saudi Riyals (SR23,153.00) from [Petitioner] ABV, as final settlement of his claims and was issued an exit visa that required him to immediately go back to the Philippines. “As a result of the foregoing, [respondent] filed a complaint for breach of contract and/or illegal dismissal, before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration which was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission “Although [respondent’s] employment contract was supposed to be valid until July 26, 1995, it was pre -terminated, through an Inter-Office Memo on Notice of Termination, dated November 17, 1994, allegedly, for the reason, ‘reduction of force.’ “[Respondent] Marianito C. Esquillo was hired as a structural engineer by [Petitioner] ABV Rock Group (‘ABV’) based in Jeddah , Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He commenced employment on July 27, 1989, with an initial monthly salary of US$1,000.00 that was gradually increased, on account of his good performance and the annual renewal of his employment contract, until it reached US$1,300.00. Private respondent Land & Housing Development Corporation (‘LHDC’), a local placement agency, facilitated [respondent’s] employment papers. The Court of Appeals ruled that despite the absence of a written categorical objection to the sufficiency of the payment received as consideration for the execution of the quitclaim, jurisprudence supported the right of respondent to demand what was rightfully his under our labor laws. Hence, he should have been allowed to recover the difference between the amount he had actually received and the amount he should have received. The CA also found that the NLRC had erroneously applied RA 8042 to the case. The appellate court held that respondent was entitled to the salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his Contract, in addition to what he had already received. Hence, this Petition. ISSUES: Whether respondent, despite having executed a quitclaim, is entitled to a grant of his additional monetary claims.
RULING: The Petition has no merit. The factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but finality.  In the present case, the labor arbiter found respondent’s dismissal to be illegal and devoid of any just or authorized cause. The factual findings of the NLRC and the CA on this matter were not contradictory. Hence, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual finding that respondent was dismissed without any legal cause With regard to contract workers, in cases arising before the effectivity of RA 8042 (the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act), it is settled that if “the contract is for a fixed term and the employee is dismissed without just cause, he is entitled to the paymen t of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract.”  In the present case, the Contract of respondent was until July 26, 1995. Since his dismissal from service effective December 18, 1994, was not for a just cause, he is entitled to be paid his salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of his Contract, in the total amount of US$9,447. We now go to the Release and Quitclaim signed by respondent. Petitioners claim that the foregoing Release and Quitclaim has forever released them from “any and all c laims, demands, dues, actions, or causes of action” arising from respondent’s employment with them. They also contend that the validity of the document can no longer be questioned. Unfortunately for petitioners, jurisprudence does not support their stance. The fact that employees have signed a release and/or quitclaim does not necessarily result in the waiver of their claims. The law strictly scrutinizes agreements in which workers agree to receive less compensation than what they are legally entitled to. That document does not always bar them from demanding benefits to which they are legally entitled “Along this line, we have more trenchantly declared that quitclaims and/or complete releases executed by the employees do not estop them from pursuing their claims arising from unfair labor practices of the employer. The basic reason for this is that such quitclaims and/or complete releases are against public policy and, therefore, null and void. The acceptance of termination does not divest a laborer of the right to prosecute his employer for unfair labor practice acts. While there may be possible exceptions to this holding, we do not perceive any in the case at bar. “Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.” Hence, quitclaims in which employees voluntarily accept a reasonable amount or consideration as settlement are deemed valid. These agreements cannot be set aside merely because the parties have subsequently changed their minds.  Consistent with this doctrine, a tribunal has the duty of scrutinizing quitclaims brought to its attention by either party, in order to determine their validity. To determine whether the Release and Quitclaim is valid, one important factor that must be taken into account is the consideration accepted by respondent; the amount must constitute a “reasonable settlement.” The NLRC considered the amount of US$6,716 or SR23,153 reasonable, when compared with (1) $3,900, the three-month salary that he would have been entitled to recover if RA 8042 were applied; and (2) US$9,447, his salaries for the unexpired portion of his Contract. It is relevant to point out, however, that respondent was dismissed prior to the effectivity of RA 8042. As discussed at the outset, he is entitled to his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of his Contract. This amount is exclusive of the SR23,153 that he received based on the November 29, 1994 Final Settlement. The latter amount was comprised of overtime pay, vacation pay, indemnity, contract reward and
laws should be interpreted to favor the working class -. Costs against petitioners 2 .in order to give flesh and vigor to the pro-poor and pro-labor provisions of our Constitution. “in case of doubt. that agreement must be set aside. To stress.items that were due him under his employment Contract.notice pay -. For these reasons. the consideration stated in the Release and Quitclaim cannot be deemed a reasonable settlement. hence. the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED.whether in the government or in the private sector -.” WHEREFORE.
" to our impression does not constitute as a just cause for dismissal.respondents. 1986. this case should be. complainant categorically alleged that he had solicited the services of the PAFLU Labor Union in filing this case. along with another complainant named Jonathan Transmit. 248. On April 6. transfer or even demote its employees to other positions when the interests of the company reasonably demand it. although private respondent was transferred to a lower position. which conducted a reinvestigation on the matter and which affirmed the recommendation of the Inventory Control Section Head for the termination of employment of respondent Malabanan. Records show that he was only transferred to the Inventory Control Section on September 1. as amended. Furthermore. where respondent Malabanan was assigned. 17.22. In fact. thereby resulting in an inaccurate posting of data on the stock cards. 248 of the Labor Code. it is the prerogative of the company to promote.). — It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practices: (a) To interfere with. [are] not present in this case In fact. Consequently. Art. It is. Confronted with this factual backgrounds. and prior to his transfer. and that due to their refusal to resign from the union.1984. respondent Malabanan. on September 25. the Plant I General Manager of petitioner company. filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal against petitioner company alleging that they (respondent Malabanan and complainant Transmil) were members of the monthly salaried employees' union affiliated with TUPAS. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. petitioners. FACTS: Respondent Malabanan was employed by petitioner Rubberworld (Phils. Article 282. Termination by employer. 1983 and was not so familiar and experienced as a stock clerk. Santiago then submitted his report to the general manager recommending the dismissal of respondent Malabanan. PD No. 75704 July 19. And ordinarily.. Even assuming for the sake of argument that herein complainant 'posted entries in the stock card without counter checking the actual movement status of the items at the warehouse. He was again transferred to the Inventory Control Section as stock clerk on September 1.G. to wit: Complainant had stated that he was a member of the monthly salaried employees union affiliated with TUPAS. indeed. xxx The question of whether an employee was dismissed because of his union activities is essentially a question of fact as to which the findings of the administrative agency concerned are conclusive and binding if supported by substantial evidence. the transfer of private respondent should be considered as within the bounds allowed by law. no evidence was presented to prove the existence of such union. 1978 as an ordinary clerk. inter alia: On January 30. Noel Santiago. it is doubtful whether Malabanan was really engaged in the organization of a labor union affiliated with the federation TUPAS As a rule. the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision (pp.complainant. No.THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) and NESTOR MALABANAN.). vs.R. INC. petitioner filed the instant petition contending that the respondent Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in reversing the Labor Arbiter's decision ISSUE: (1) whether or not the dismissal of respondent Malabanan is tainted with unfair labor practice. offered no proof to support his allegation. We are compelled to agree with the latter that the petitioner company did not commit any unfair labor practice in transferring and thereafter dismissing private respondent. respondent Commission reversed the appealed decision of the Labor Arbiter and stated. premises considered. the union itself is impleaded as a co. for lack of merit. the record shows no derogatory records in terms of his performance. 1984. His 3 . — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following just causes: xxx b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. conducted an investigation of the reported discrepancies in the stock cards upon the request of the Plant General Manager. 1983. denied complainants' allegations and averred that respondent Malabanan's dismissal was due to gross and habitual neglect of his duty and not due to his union affiliation. 1980. complainant is usually supported by the union of which he is a member. which fact was not refuted or questioned by private respondent. Malabanan's case was endorsed to the Human Resources Division of petitioner company. As a result thereof. surprisingly. Such circumstances. provides: Art. It means such evidence which affords a substantial basis from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred The findings of the Labor Arbiter on the non-existence of unfair labor practice on the part of the company are more in accord and supported by the evidence submitted by the parties in the instant case. in cases like this one. he was promoted to the position of production scheduler with a corresponding salary increase. and ELPIDIO HIDALGO. Section Head of the Inventory Control Section. Unfair labor practices of employers. He. however. On September 3. Elpidio Hidalgo. DISMISSED. We (note] from the records that. On June 17. In view of the foregoing conclusions of the Labor Arbiter. that petitioner company forced them to disaffiliate from the union. 442. The remaining issue to be resolved on this point is whether the dismissal of respondent Malabanan was for a just and lawful cause. and (2) whether or not a just and valid cause exists for the dismissal of private respondent Malabanan RULING: We believe that the foregoing contentions are impressed with merit. 1989 RUBBERWORLD (PHILS. Rollo). 1986. his original rank and salary remained undiminished. Unless there are instances which directly point to interference by the company with the employees' right to self-organization. In May. restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. 1985. as it is hereby. For one. Inc. surprising that complainant had to solicit the help of a labor union (PAFLU) of which he was not a member instead of soliciting the aid of the labor union (TUPAS) of which he was allegedly a member. as the usual practice. received a copy of the Financial Audit Report from the Internal Audit Department of the company showing a significant material variance between the year-end actual inventory and that of the Cards (SC)/EDP Control Records. Petitioner company on the other hand. On June 16. the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE. we find ourselves inclined to the view that the appealed decision merits a reversal. These circumstances alone [destroy] the credibility of complainant's allegations Nowhere in the records can We find that the company actually performed positive acts to restrain the union participation of private respondent. they were ultimately dismissed from employment by petitioner company.
this was only his first infraction with regard to his duties. for it is not proportionate to the gravity of the misdeed. but also his means of livelihood. more vital than the preservation of corporate profits ACCORDINGLY. This is so because the preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the State. for what is at stake is not only petitioner's position. It would thus be cruel and unjust to mete out the drastic penalty of dismissal. the petitioner is further ordered to pay private respondent separation pay equivalent to one (1) month's salary for every year of service rendered. Considering that there is nothing on record that shows that he willfully defied instructions of his superior with regards to his duties and that he gained personal benefit of the discrepancy. with three years backwages and without loss of seniority rights and benefits appurtenant thereto. in gratia argumenti that the private respondent had indeed committed the said mistakes in the posting of accurate data. the decision of the public respondent is hereby MODIFIED to the effect that petitioner company is ordered to reinstate private respondent Nestor Malabanan to the position of stock clerk or substantially equivalent position. In other words he was not notoriously negligent to warrant his severance from the service. Assuming. 4 .failure to carry out efficiently his duties as a stock clerk is not so gross and habitual. the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. his dismissal is unwarranted. with the same rank and salary he is enjoying at the time of his termination. It is worthy to note that the prerogative of management to dismiss or lay-off an employee must be done without abuse of discretion. computed at his last rate of salary. However. Should the reinstatement of the private respondent as herein ordered be rendered impossible by the supervention of circumstances which prevent the same.
petitioner-appellant. Dra. The old law as embodied particularly in Section 43 of RA No." [Art. 167(1) Labor Code as amended by P. in case of doubt in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code." [Hernandez vs." and "paved the way for the latitudinarian or expansive application of the Workmen's Compensation Law in favor of the employee or worker. 3428. or any illness caused by employment subject to proof by the employee that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. in case of doubt in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code. Thereafter a claim for death benefits under P. for the sickness or the resulting disability or death to be compensable. For this purpose. we find that the same has no application in this case since the pertinent provisions of the Labor Code leave no room for doubt either in their interpretation or application. On September 1.D." Upon operation it was found that her entire gastrointestinal tract was enveloped by carcinoma. the "latitudinarian or expansive application of the Workmen's Compensation Law in favor of the employee or worker" no longer prevails as the burden of showing proof of causation has shifted back to the employee particularly in cases of sickness or injuries which are not accepted or listed as occupational by the Employees Compensation Commission. Thus. no longer control. ISSUES: a] The respondent Commission's affirmance of the denial by respondent System totally ignored the Supreme Court's pronouncements on compensation cases. L-20202. Despite chemotherapy. The same was however denied on the ground that the decedent's principal ailment. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM [Ministry of Education & Culture] and EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION. which favor the employee. or any other sickness caused by employment subject to proof by claimant that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. was filed by petitioner with the GSIS. under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The petitioner evidently overlooked that his claim is now within the ambit of the Labor Code and the rulings under the old law. respondents-appellees FACTS: The late Lourdes Bonifacio was a classroom teacher assigned to the district of Bagamanoc. the sickness must be the result of an accepted occupational disease fisted by the Employees Compensation Commission [Annex "A" of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation]. vs. she complained of "abdominal pain. et. No costs 5 . it became incumbent upon petitioner to prove that the decedent's working conditions increased the risk of her contracting the fatal illness. 1978. Carcinoma of the breast with metastases to the gastrointestinal tract and lungs is not listed by the Commission as an occupational disease. Employees Compensation Commission [supra] "the Labor Code abolished the presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness caused by the nature of the employment While we do not dispute petitioner's contention that under the law. Rule 11.G. and b] Under the law. in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary. it is not necessary for the claimant to carry the burden of proof to establish his case to the point of demonstration [Abana vs. Quisumbing. 22 SCRA 282] "Once the disease had been shown to have arisen in the course of employment. the petition is dismissed and the decisions of the GSIS and the Employees Compensation Commission denying the claim are affirmed. [Sec. as amended. As stated in Sulit vs. it is presumed by law. Division of Catanduanes. al. No. including its implementing rules and regulations. 1965]. Petitioner's contention that the decision of the Employees Compensation Commission totally ignored the Supreme Court's pronouncements on compensation cases is unmeritorious." [Fontesa vs. vomiting. the Commission is empowered to determine and approve occupational diseases and work-related illnesses that may be considered compensable based on peculiar hazards of employment. It is "not necessary to prove that employment was the sole cause of the death or injury suffered by the employee. ECC. provided for "the presumption of compensability and the rule on aggravation of illness." Under the present Labor Code.D. L-62207 December 15. is not an occupational disease for her particular work as a teacher. In 1976. the doubt shall be resolved in favor of the laborer. carcinoma of the breast with metastases to gastrointestinal tract and lungs. 1986 JUAN BONIFACIO. when her ailment was noted to have metastasized to her abdomen. It is sufficient to show that the employment had contributed to the aggravation or acceleration of such death or ailment.R. 1368. May 31. 626. including its implementing rules and regulations. 1. she submitted herself to an operation known as "exploratory laparotomy" in March of the same year. The cancer which affected the deceased not being occupational in her particular employment. Thus. abdominal enlargement. Amended Rules on Employees Compensation]. A compensable sickness means "any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Employees Compensation Commission. effective May 1. 1978]. No. WHEREFORE. as amended. 772 amending Act No. Ministry of Education and Culture from August. Act No. ECC. This onus petitioner failed to satisfactorily discharge. the same shall be resolved in favor of the laborer RULING: We hold that the GSIS and the Employees Compensation Commission did not err in denying petitioner's claim. Corazon Yabes-Almirante of the Ospital ng Bagong Lipunan certified that the late Lourdes Bonifacio underwent radical mastectomy for cancer of the breast in 1973. nor is the risk of contracting said disease increased by her working conditions. 1978 from carcinoma of the breast metastatic to gastrointestinal tract and lungs. No. 1965 until she contracted carcinoma of the breast with metastases to the gastrointestinal tract and lungs which caused her death on October 5. 1978. 3812. that it arose out of it. 22 SCRA 1278]. and failure to pass stools inspite of laxatives. she died on October 5.
EDUARDO A. FACTS: Herein private respondents Raul C.00. 15). These were submitted to the POEA and were validated by the latter on April 22. No. . L-52415 October 23. Subparagraph a of paragraph seven of the master employment contract of the respondent in its Iraq project during the year 1985 provides a vacation leave of 20 days and sick leave of 10 days or a total of thirty (30) days leave for each of their employees for twelve (12) months service. The mandate of the law for a liberal interpretation of labor contracts in favor of the working man was applied in the case of Ditan vs. a second overseas contract was executed by the PNCC which was accepted by private respondents. The said leaves (sic) benefits are commutable to cash at the rate of 100% of the employee's salary at the end of employees foreign assignment (subpar. petitioner. SECOND DIVISION. overtime pay. However. A Motion for Reconsideration of this Resolution having been denied on August 23. 1985 was the actual employment contract and that Article 34 (i) of the Labor Code was applicable.G.00/month salary. As correctly invoked by complainants paragraph (1) of Article 34 of the Labor Code prohibits the substitution or alteration of employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time (of) the actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor. among which were the confirmation letters 4 issued to each of the private respondents and the certification 5issued by the POEA on June 25. . Abrico. On August 17. 1985. The contracts provided for a US$350. . However. herein complainants have the right to be paid as monthly salaries the aforementioned amount. Consequently. This being so. and Benigno M. 1985. POEA Administrator 8 where We made the following pronouncement: A strict interpretation of the cold facts before us might support the position taken by the respondents. When the period lapsed. MANASIS. this Office finds it proper for the respondent to pay to complainants the difference of the two aforementioned amounts. Respondents having paid the complainants the said benefits in accordance with the monthly rate they actually received while working in Iraq. Sibbaluca.00 for the same position. Eduardo A. sick leave. Vasallo. The contract was for a two-year period. 7. Respondent's master employment contract also provides for completion bonus of fifteen (15) days for every year of service (par. that is US$260. . respondents. 1985. instead of US$350. 1993 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. SIBBALUCA. With costs G. RODRIGO VASALLO. Abrico and Rodrigo J. our Civil Code 7 states: In case of doubt. the questioned Resolution of the NLRC is hereby AFFIRMED. WHEREFORE. One of the axioms governing judicial review through certiorari is that the administrative decision may properly be annulled or set aside only upon clear showing that the administrative official or tribunal has acted with grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner's claim that the public respondent NLRC gravely abused its discretion in holding that the private respondents were entitled to a monthly salary of US$350. 101535 January 22. ISSUE: Whether the public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that the notice of employment dated April 15. 1987 stating that the approved rate for the position of a company guard for the PNCC was US$350.00. 3 The assailed NLRC decision which affirmed the POEA ruling was based on the exhibits presented by the parties. 1987 so that they could avail of more benefits under the Retirement Program offered by the PNCC. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. private respondents filed a complaint before the POEA for. While the allegations of the PNCC may cast doubt on the real nature of the April 12. In connection with the second issues of vacation and sick leaves (sic) differentials as well as bonus differential. 1985 was the actual employment contract and that Article 34 (i) of the Labor Code was applicable.00 pursuant to the April 15. . However. . night differential pay. in view of the foregoing. among others. and BENIGNO M. private respondents were repatriated and were extended local employment. this Office finds it proper to award the complainants the difference of the two (2) aforementioned amounts as far as their vacation and sick leaves (sic) benefits as well as completion bonus are concerned. Under the policy of social justice. this petition is DISMISSED. their salary rate in their approved employment contract.00 a month. bonuses. on May 12.R. (b) underpayment of salaries. 1991. there being no refutation from the respondent of the allegation of the complainants that they were paid the said benefits in accordance with the monthly rate they were receiving while working in Iraq. 1985 employment contract has not been adequately substantiated. This can be inferred from the POEA approved contract of employment and by the certification issued by respondent's chief recruiting officer. The NLRC affirmed the POEA decision. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION. RAUL ABRICO. (c) assigning Friday overtime guarding duties to non-guards. Manasis were deployed by herein petitioner for overseas employment to Iraq as security guards pursuant to individual appointment contracts dated April 15. . . vs. No. It modified the April 15. Rodrigo Vasallo.00. 1984 6 . With regard to the first issue in this case the approved contract of employment of the herein complainants with the respondent is US$350. all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborers. . 1987. 1985 contract by providing for a monthly salary of US$260. (a) non-payment of promotional pay increase for Raul C. respondent's Master Employment Contract). and vacation leave benefits. petitioner filed this petition for certiorari alleging that the public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that the notice of employment dated April 15. the Constitution mandates the protection of labor and the sympathetic concern of the State for the working class conformably to the social justice policy.R. we are dealing here not with an ordinary transaction but with a labor contract which deserves special treatment and a liberal interpretation in favor of the worker . all of them filed their voluntary resignation effective August 31. the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privileges in life should have more privileges in law. c par. 1985 document. RULING: We find no sufficient ground to annul the decision of the NLRC due to a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment.
petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent bank for the payment of holiday pay before the then Department of Labor. they in effect amended them by enlarging the scope of their exclusion (p. particularly Article 208 This conclusion is deduced from the fact that the daily rate of pay of the bank employees was computed in the past with the unworked regular holidays as excluded for purposes of determining the deductible amount for absences incurred Thus. rec. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of a Labor Arbiter awarding payment of regular holiday pay can still be set aside on appeal by the Deputy Minister of Labor even though it has already become final and had been partially executed. 850 was promulgated amending. underscoring supplied). this petition for certiorari charging public respondent Amado G. Ministry of Labor and INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA. the dispositive portion of which states ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED. this gives rise to a presumption that the monthly rate does not include payments for unworked regular holidays. provides: The coverage and scope of exclusion of the Labor Code's holiday pay provisions is spelled out under Article 82. Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. the finality of which was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission sitting en banc. The use of the factor 303 indicates the number of ordinary working days in a year (which normally has 365 calendar days). NLRC rec. by reason of the ruling laid down by the aforecited rule implementing Article 94 of the Labor Code and by Policy Instruction No. Inciong with abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction..). Conciliation having failed. which provides that: "employees who are uniformly paid by the month. stopped the payment of holiday pay to an its employees On October 18. on the basis of an Implementing Rule and Policy Instruction promulgated by the Ministry of Labor long after the said decision had become final and executory. 850. 18. Instead. the case was certified for arbitration on July 7. it is not amiss to state with certainty that the instant claim for wages on regular unworked holidays is found to be tenable and meritorious Ordering respondent to pay wages to all its employees for all regular holidays since November 1. 1979. 1976. under Rule IV.. Respondent bank did not appeal from the said decision. the Department of Labor (now Ministry of Labor) promulgated the rules and regulations for the implementation of holidays with pay On April 23. issued an order enjoining the respondent bank to continue paying its employees their regular holiday pay on the following grounds: (a) that the judgment is already final and the findings which is found in the body of the decision as well as the dispositive portion thereof is res judicata or is the law of the case between the parties. From the above-cited provisions. 9. This being the case. the National Labor Relations Commission promulgated its resolution en banc dismissing respondent bank's appeal. Respondent bank. as it is hereby. 52 Sundays. and (b) that since the decision had been partially implemented by the respondent bank. as amended by P. the implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor excludes monthly paid employees from the said benefits by inserting. 9 was issued by the then Secretary of Labor (now Minister) interpreting the above-quoted rule.). Hence. the provisions of the Labor Code on the right to holiday pay Accordingly. Deputy Minister. RULING: WE agree with the petitioner's contention that Section 2. Policy Instruction No. issued an order. 1 1. 1975. 1976. NLRC rec. through Deputy Minister Amado G. instead of issuing a writ of execution. Section 2. Soriano by paying their holiday pay up to and including January. Regional Office No. excluding the 52 Sundays and the 10 regular holidays. by authority of Article 5 of the same Code. set aside and a new judgment promulgated dismissing the instant case for lack of merit (p. HON. the Office of the Minister of Labor. 1975. 1975 (p.INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA EMPLOYEES' UNION (IBAAEU). Soriano rendered a decision in the above-entitled case. Article 94 of the Labor Code. Book Ill of the implementing rules. On November 10. AMADO G. Art. except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers. INCIONG. . it complied with the order of Arbiter Ricarte T. — (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays. Soriano. if the employer uses the factor 303 days as a divisor in determining the daily rate of monthly paid employee.D. National Labor Relations Commission. appeal from the said decision is no longer available On June 20. Right to holiday pay. 1976 On December 16. 1974 (pp. 1976. petitioner. 97-99. However. Presidential Decree No. irrespective of the number of working days therein. On August 25. Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. granting petitioner's complaint for payment of holiday pay The records disclosed that employees of respondent bank were not paid their wages on unworked regular holidays as mandated by the Code. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor are null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code's provisions on holiday pay. " 7 . it is clear that monthly paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. Book III of the implementing rules and Policy Instruction No. on February 16. among others. and 10 regular holidays) gives rise likewise to the same presumption that the unworked Saturdays. Rule IV. 94. let the appealed Resolution en banc of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 20 June 1978 be. and upon the request of both parties. 1975. rec. vs. IV in Manila. respondents FACTS: On June 20. Inciong.. The use of 251 as a factor (365 calendar days less 52 Saturdays. Sundays and regular holidays are unpaid. 1978. with a salary of not less than the statutory or established minimum wage shall be presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. 436.
On the question of whether or not a law or statute can annul or modify a judicial order issued prior to its promulgation. Recto. and was.. Bulos 5 SCRA 803) and Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that ". execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal . including its implementing rules and regulations. In view of the foregoing. being unappealable. as correct. the then Secretary of Labor went as far as to categorically state that the benefit is principally intended for daily paid employees. THE PETITION IS HEREBY GRANTED. it is patently unjust to deprive the members of petitioner union of their vested right acquired by virtue of a final judgment on the basis of a labor statute promulgated following the acquisition of the "right". the Secretary (Minister) of Labor had exceeded his statutory authority granted by Article 5 of the Labor Code authorizing him to promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations While it is true that the contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by executive officers whose duty is to enforce it should be given great weight by the courts. Said order. this Court. be deprived arbitrarily without injustice" Tested by and pitted against this broad concept of the constitutional guarantee of due process. 1975. still if such construction is so erroneous. Section 2. especially if such party readily acquiesced in the judgment by starting to execute said judgment even before a writ of execution was issued.it provides for both the coverage of and exclusion from the benefits In Policy Instruction No. the lapse of the appeal period deprives the courts of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment and the judgment becomes final ipso jure The despotic manner by which public respondent Amado G. or altering contractual obligations" Section I of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that ".. This is a flagrant violation of the mandatory directive of Article 4 of the Labor Code. decisions. COSTS AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENT INSULAR BANK OF ASIA AND AMERICA 8 .. Soriano dated August 25. to permit a party to appeal from the said partially executed final judgment would make a mockery of the doctrine of finality of judgments long enshrined in this jurisdiction Obviously. the provisions of the Labor Code on the entitlement to the benefits of holiday pay are clear and explicit .. or decisions. orders." Thus. THE ORDER OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS SET ASIDE. 1975. the rule of execution of judgments under the rules should govern all kinds of execution of judgment. in fact. Neither the Constitution nor the statutes. when the law clearly states that every worker shall be paid their regular holiday pay.. Inciong is a clear example of deprivation of property without due process of law and constituted grave abuse of discretion." This rule applies to decisions or orders of labor arbiters who are exercising quasi-judicial functions since ". shall be resolved in favor of labor. AND THE DECISION OF LABOR ARBITER RICARTE T. under the aforecited rule. or if no appeal has been duly perfected. the action of public respondent Amado G. Book III of the Rules to implement the Labor Code and Policy instruction No. it shall always be presumed that the legislature intended to enact a valid and permanent statute which would have the most beneficial effect that its language permits A party who waives his right to appeal is deemed to have accepted the judgment. which states that "All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code.. as in this case. through Associate Justice Claro M.. except penal laws favorable to the accused. SORIANO DATED AUGUST 25. amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order dated November 10. IS HEREBY REINSTATED.In the case at bar. as in the instant case. A final judgment is "a vested interest which it is right and equitable that the government should recognize and protect." Moreover. . adverse or not.. Inciong divested the members of the petitioner union of their rights acquired by virtue of a final judgment is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law Public respondent completely ignored the rights of the petitioner union's members in dismissing their complaint since he knew for a fact that the judgment of the labor arbiter had long become final and was even partially executed by the respondent bank. and of which the individual could no. said: We are decidedly of the opinion that they did not. awards. had already become final. 9 issued by the then Secretary of Labor must be declared null and void. Under these circumstances. partially executed by the respondent bank. Accordingly. Inciong had no basis at all to deny the members of petitioner union their regular holiday pay as directed by the Labor Code It is not disputed that the decision of Labor Arbiter Ricarte T. 1979. unless it is otherwise provided in other laws" Sagucio vs. Rule IV. or orders of the Labor Arbiter or compulsory arbitrators are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) days from receipt of such awards.. the same must be declared as null and void. WHEREFORE. 9. public respondent Deputy Minister of Labor Amado G. became final on the date of its issuance and the parties who acquired rights thereunder cannot be deprived thereof by a constitutional provision enacted or promulgated subsequent thereto.. have retroactive effect in the sense of annulling or modifying vested rights.
supplements or payments for unworked regular holidays as provided in existing individual or collective agreement or employer practice or policy From the pertinent provisions of the CBA entered into by the parties. Rule IV. 2004 FACTS: The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). In any event." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In deciding in favor of the Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU). like on April 9. the Voluntary Arbitrator held that Article 94 of the Labor Code provides for holiday pay for every regular holiday. enumerates ten regular holidays for every year should not be interpreted as authorizing a reduction to nine the number of paid regular holidays "just because April 9 (Araw ng Kagitingan) in certain years. it filed the present petition for certiorari on September 15. Thirteenth Division. speedy and adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. petitioner. KISHIN A. the computation of which is determined by a legal formula which is not changed by the fact that there are two holidays falling on one day. the fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate to reduce to nine the ten holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive. that employees are entitled to 200% of their basic wage on April 9. whether unworked. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS’ ACTS WILL DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS BY THE "EXPLANATORY BULLETIN" AS WELL AS EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS? RULING: The petition is devoid of merit [S]ince the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition under Rule 65. HON. It is also intended to enable the worker to participate in the national celebrations held during the days identified as with great historical and cultural significance As reflected above. No. and DIRECTOR CHITA G.9 The provision is mandatory. petitioner had obligated itself to pay for the legal holidays as required by law. any doubt in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code provisions on holiday pay must be resolved in favor of labor ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS and THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION? And. a petitioner must show that he has no plain. which is a management prerogative. COURT OF APPEALS. 1998. For the working m an’s welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. any alleged errors committed by it in the exercise of its jurisdiction would be errors of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal and not by a special civil action of certiorari. 94 of the Labor Code. 1998. 2000. 4 of the Labor Code provides that all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of its provisions. a legal holiday]. FROILAN M.10 regardless of whether an employee is paid on a monthly or daily basis. Technicality aside. The Hon. when April 9. 144664 ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION. Since a worker is entitled to the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays. like 1993 and 1998.the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision directing petitioner to pay its covered employees "200% and not just 100% of their regular daily wages for the unworked April 9. CILINDRO in her capacity as Director of Bureau of Working Conditions. Union. namely. 1998 was both Maundy Thursday and Araw ng Kagitingan x x x x Despite the explanatory bulletin. the controversy was submitted for voluntary arbitration. through Undersecretary Cresenciano B. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against its perceived grievance. his predicament being the effect of his deliberate inaction. including its implementing rules and regulations. Art. HON. BISIG NG ASIAN TRANSMISSION LABOR UNION (BATLU).12 holiday pay is a statutory benefit demandable under the law. BACUNGAN as Voluntary Arbitrator. x x x x On July 31. LAGUESMA in his capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment. he cannot avail himself of the writ of certiorari. shall be resolved in favor of labor. For the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to issue." In the assailed decision. Araw ng Kagitignan and Maundy Thursday. 11. Trajano. 1998. as amended. vs. inter alia. 1993 wherein it clarified. Book III of the Omnibus Rules to Implement the Labor Code provides that "Nothing in the law or the rules shall justify an employer in withdrawing or reducing any benefits. Union representative to the Panel Arbitrators. affords a worker the enjoyment of ten paid regular holidays.R. at which time the Court of Appeals decision had become final and executory. 2000 of a copy of the August 10. WHEREFORE.G. as amended. respondents. the 15-day period to appeal it under Rule 45 having expired. petitioner [Asian Transmission Corporation] opted to pay its daily paid employees only 100% of their basic pay on April 9.] apart from being Good Friday [ and. Sec. 1998 which covers two regular holidays. A remedy is considered "plain. and the decision accordingly becomes final and executory. Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to labor. In accordance with Step 6 of the grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) existing between petitioner and BATLU. 1993. this Court finds no ground to disturb the assailed decision. 1998 when it was Araw ng Kagitingan and at the same time was Maundy Thursday. 2000 Resoluti on of the Court of Appeals denying its Motion for Reconsideration. the petition is hereby DISMISSED 9 . If the aggrieved party fails to do so within the reglementary period. BIENVENIDO T. LALWANI. therefore. the Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator The Court of Appeals further held that "in the absence of an explicit provision in law which provides for [a] reduction of holiday pay if two holidays happen to fall on the same day. is also Holy Friday or Maundy Thursday. Moreover. appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy The records of the case show that following petitioner’s receipt on August 18. Respondent Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU) protested. Art. In this case. March 15. issued an Explanatory Bulletin dated March 11. is also Araw ng Kagitingan [which is also a legal holiday] Said bulletin was reproduced on January 23. 11Unlike a bonus. which[. and that that the law.
90 SCRA 393 . p. Sec. investigator and judge at the same time. it could not have altered the fact that the proceedings were violative of the elementary rule of justice and fair play.R. The guarantee is an act of social justice. Dismissal is not justified for being arbitrary where the workers were denied due process (Reyes v. his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood. Whether the requisites of due process were not complied in that. s. vs. there is no basis for respondent Union's accusations. Philippine Duplicators. 1982 (Rollo. Court of Industrial Relations. and (2) respondent corporation is ordered: (1) to reinstate petitioners to their former positions without reduction in rank. 109 SCRA 489  and a clear denial of due process. Ponciano Fernandez. Therefore. without any reduction or qualification. considering their length of service their corresponding separation pay and other benefits to which they are entitled under the law 10 . They. ET AL. series of 1982. Employers should. 1982 was composed of the Chairman of the Board. p. Among the disputed portions of the NLRC decision is its finding that it has been substantially proven that the petitioners committed acts of disloyalty to their union as a consequence of the filing by NAFLU for and in their behalf of the complaint in question (Rollo. Article 280 of the Labor Code has construed security of tenure as meaning that "the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by" the code (Bundoc v. AND ANTONIO ANTIQUERA. the same is not without limitations. 84. respondent corporation and respondent union are solidarily ordered to pay.. PONCIANO FERNANDEZ.. The employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating the services of his employees especially so when it is made upon the request of a labor union pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. All told. petitioners were dismissed by respondent Corporation. When a person has no property. ESTER FELONGCO. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the "Union Security Clause" valid and considered the termination of the petitioners justified thereunder.G. This is especially true in the case at bar where there were 125 workers mostly heads or sole breadwinners of their respective families. in the special meeting of the members of the Board of Directors as convened by the Union President on August 16. and (c) to pay petitioners exemplary damages of P500. It is evident that private respondents were in bad faith in dismissing petitioners. MELBA GUTIERREZ. of 1982 (Rollo. Inc. JOHNNY LEE. are guilty of unfair labor practice PREMISES CONSIDERED. and two (2) members of the Board. 100 SCRA 691 ). VIRGINIA MALLARI. as in the instant case. 116 SCRA 459  citing Kapisanan ng Mga Manggagawa sa MRR v. another labor union claiming jurisdiction similar to the former. because they did not in fact affiliate themselves with another Union. seniority and salary. Time and again. It is the policy of the state to assure the right of workers to "security of tenure" (Article XIII. p. he should be protected against any arbitrary deprivation of his job. (b) to pay petitioners three-year backwages. p. Because of the expulsion. 1988 AMADA RANCE. 20 SCRA 109). CONSOLACION DE LA ROSA. It is the same Board that expelled its 125 members in its Resolution No. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. while still members of respondent union (Rollo. On the contrary. Resolution). 103 SCRA 599 ). (1) the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-NCR-11-6881-82 dated April 26. Petitioners insist that their expulsion from the Union and consequent dismissal from employment have no basis whether factual or legal. Inc. The proceeding would have been a farce under the circumstances (Lit Employees Association v. therefore. this Court has reminded employers that while the power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of the employer. ROMAS VILLAMIN. respect and protect the rights of their employees. for having committed an act of disloyalty to the Polybag Workers Union by having affiliated with and having joined the NAFLU. The Panel of Investigators created under the Board's Resolution No. ISSUE: Whether the NLRC erred in ruling that the expulsion proceeding conducted by the Union was in accordance with its by-laws? And. that complainants were not furnished notice of the charge against them. Petitioners sued for reinstatement and backwages stating their dismissal was without due process. 6-4275-82 appeared in the supposed investigation proceedings to answer the charge of disloyalty against them. petitioners. EDUARDO MENDOZA. POLYBAG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION. L-68147 June 30. they claim that there is a connivance between respondents Company and Union in their illegal dismissal in order to avoid the payment of separation pay by respondent company. that in the absence of any full blown investigation of the expelled members of the Union by an impartial body. the NAFLU. Ponciano Fernandez. respondents FACTS: Petitioners herein were among the members of the respondent union who were expelled by the latter for disloyalty in that they allegedly joined the NAFLU — a large federation. AMANCIA GAY. 84. (De Leon v. Due process must be observed in dismissing an employee because it affects not only his position but also his means of livelihood. MERCEDES LACUESTA. POLYBAG WORKERS UNION. CATALINO ARAGONES. or constitutional right must be safeguarded against at all times. it is obvious. pp. they elevated their cause to the Supreme Court. Where reinstatement is no longer feasible. 83. p. 16) based on the findings and recommendations of the panel of investigators. Losing both in the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Rollo. 213). there was no impartial tribunal or union body vested with authority to conduct the disciplinary proceeding under the union constitution and by-laws. The Board of Directors of respondent union would have acted as prosecutor. The filing of the charge of disloyalty against petitioners was instigated by the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Acting Union President. jointly and solidarily with respondent Union. Samson Yap and Carmen Garcia (Rollo. the private respondents. Section 9. Dismissals must not be arbitrary and capricious. 1984 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. which include the right to labor (Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v.. Respondent Polybag Workers Union as already stated expelled 125 members on the ground of disloyalty and acts inimical to the interests of the Union (Resolution No. National Labor Relations Commission. 46). Liberty Cotton Mills. 214). 45-46).00 each. 219). and. No. nor timely notices of the hearings on the same? RULING: In any event. People's Bank and Trust Company. Article II of the 1973 Constitution). even if petitioners who were complainants in NLRC-AB Case No. s. Rafael Hernandez. 3 of the New Constitution.
and regulations relating to wages. who rendered a Decision on September 24. January. and health standards (Section 7. he was still in the employ of the firm. On May 23. President.00 or over 40% of the equity of the employer. (p. cost of living allowance and other monetary and welfare benefits. Petitioner has forty-one (41) employees. REGION X. arising from his visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code. 1986. provided of course. this office. petitioner. by virtue of his enforcement power. Payrolls covering the periods of May.D. the Labor Standard and Welfare Officers submitted their report confirming that there was underpayment of wages and ECOLAs of all the employees by the petitioner. The whole enforcement machinery of the Department of Labor exists to insure its expeditious delivery to him free of charge Under the foregoing. above-cited. which transferred labor standards cases from the arbitration system to the enforcement system Under PD 850.O. EO 111 authorizes a Regional Director to order compliance by an employer with labor standards provisions of the Labor Code and other legislation. headed by Mrs. 111. a Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over labor standards cases. that even in the absence of E. as amended. it pleaded for time to raise funds to satisfy its obligation. 98. " The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists" . Rule I. On July 17. represented by ANTERA L. The Regional Director. 78909 June 30. 6. which was docketed as ROX Case No. Rollo). 6 Viewed in the light of PD 850 and read in coordination with MOLE Policy Instructions Nos. 1986. 1985 and May. safety. hours of work. the dispositive portion of which reads: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. DORADO.888. Hon. 1986. averaging 130 per month. O. 1987). dated September 16. 1986. CW-71-86. On October 24. 1987.756. No. the employees are given food. modifying the said Order in that deficiency wages and ECOLAs should be computed only from May 23. the Regional Director issued an Order dated August 4.R.G.. deficiency on wage and ecola as verified and confirmed per review of the respondent payrolls and interviews with the complainant workers and all other information gathered by the team. including occupational. RULING: This is a labor standards case. 1983 to May 23. No. Region X. President be ORDERED to pay the amount of SIX HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SIX & 01/100 (P654. 1 Under the present rules. that Antera Dorado.000. Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws. 1974. c) the case requires evidentiary matters not disclosed or verified in the normal course of inspection. were duly submitted for inspection. Antera Dorado. It is Our considered opinion however.58. 1986. 1986. a complaining employee who was denied his rights and benefits due him under labor standards law need not litigate. The hospital derives its finances from the club itself as well as from paying patients. ten (10) employees of the petitioner employed in different capacities/positions filed a complaint with the Office of the Regional Director of Labor and Employment. On June 16. in Article 128(b). except where a) questions of law are involved as determined by the Regional Director. vs. rules. it is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Regional Director. provided there still exists an employeremployee relationship. Rollo). as holdover President. Regional Directors already had enforcement powers over money claims. Aside from salary and living allowances. assured "expeditious delivery to him of his rights and benefits free of charge". merely confirms/reiterates the enforcement adjudication authority of the Regional Director over uncontested money claims in cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists. directing the payment of P723. petitioner admitted the charge of underpayment of wages to workers still in its employ. or d) there is no more employer-employee relationship. whichever is lower. and is governed by Art. the extent of coverage of any award that should be forthcoming. No. There was thus no contest against the findings of the labor inspectors As seen from the foregoing. respondents FACTS: Petitioner is a semi-government hospital. in fact. the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Secretary of Labor in his Order dated May 13. however. labor standards cases have been taken from the arbitration system and placed under the enforcement system. for underpayment of their salaries and ECOLAS.. representing underpayment of wages and ECOLAs to all the petitioner's employees Petitioner appealed from this Order to the Minister of Labor and Employment. 7 and 37. effective under P. Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Office. 1986. for lack of merit ISSUE: whether or not the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the case and if so. Augusto S. it is clear that it has always been the intention of our labor authorities to provide our workers immediate access (when still feasible. as where an employer-employee relationship 11 . 99. No. The worker need not litigate to get what legally belongs to him. November. and the findings of the regional office is not contested by the employer concerned We believe. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF LABOR. Rollo) Based on this inspection report and recommendation. issued on December 16. 1985. The purpose is clear: to assure the worker the rights and benefits due to him under labor standards laws without having to go through arbitration. the Regional Director directed two of his Labor Standard and Welfare Officers to inspect the records of the petitioner to ascertain the truth of the allegations in the complaints (p. b) the amount involved exceeds P100. 128-b of the Labor Code. 850. It is also partly subsidized by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and the Cagayan De Oro City government. 1989 MATERNITY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL. Sanchez. representing underpayment of wages and ecola to the THIRTY SIX (36) employees of the said hospital as appearing in the attached Annex "F" worksheets and/or whatever action equitable under the premises. managed by the Board of Directors of the Cagayan de Oro Women's Club and Puericulture Center. as amended by E. but the amount spent therefor is deducted from their respective salaries (pp. In the present case. 77-78.01). 1986. and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims. 1975. 111. that the inclusion of the phrase.
the entire members/employees should benefit therefrom. as regards all persons still employed in the Hospital at the time of the filing of the complaint. Labor laws are meant to promote. The Regional Director correctly applied the award with respect to those employees who signed the complaint. (Emphasis supplied) However. because what is sought to be achieved by its exercise is the observance of. As aptly stated by then Minister of Labor Augusto S. but would be the pinnacle of injustice considering that it would not only discriminate but also deprive them of legislated benefits. without being inconvenienced by arbitration/litigation processes that prove to be not only nervewracking. not applicable where the employee seeking to be paid underpayment of wages is already separated from the service. Indeed. 54. if after categorically finding the respondent hospital guilty of underpayment of wages and ECOLAs. . there is no legal justification for the award in favor of those employees who were no longer connected with the hospital at the time the complaint was filed. Rollo). His claim is purely a money claim that has to be the subject of arbitration proceedings and therefore within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. in case of an award resulting from a violation of labor legislation by such establishment. 38-39. we limit the award to only those who signed the complaint to the exclusion of the majority of the workers who are similarly situated. This view is further bolstered by the provisions of Sec. (pp. social justice We now come to the question of whether or not the Regional Director erred in extending the award to all hospital employees. We answer in the affirmative. to be truly meaningful and rewarding to our workers. 6. It would be highly derogatory to the rights of the workers. hence. . as it is hereby DISMISSED. cited by petitioner (p. — A complaint inspection shall not be limited to the specific allegations or violations raised by the complainants/workers but shall be a thorough inquiry into and verification of the compliance by employer with existing labor standards and shall cover all workers similarly situated. Social justice legislation. such firm/establishment with the labor standards regulations. 12 . Rights must be asserted and benefits received with the least inconvenience.still exists) to their rights and benefits. this would be not only render the enforcement power of the Minister of Labor and Employment nugatory. but financially burdensome in the long run. Necessarily. and exercisable over establishments. as well as those who did not sign the complaint. Sanchez: . Rule II of the "Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards cases in the Regional Offices" (supra) presently enforced. and/or compliance by. but were still connected with the hospital at the time the complaint was filed The justification for the award to this group of employees who were not signatories to the complaint is that the visitorial and enforcement powers given to the Secretary of Labor is relevant to. . Rollo) is not applicable as said article is in aid of the enforcement power of the Regional Director. this petition should be dismissed. Coverage of complaint inspection. ACCORDINGLY. not over the individual members/employees. viz: SECTION 6. The enforcement power of the Regional Director cannot legally be upheld in cases of separated employees. having resigned therefrom in 1984. must not be hampered in its application by long-winded arbitration and litigation. Article 129 of the Labor Code. but GRANTED as regards those employees no longer employed at that time. . not defeat.
the law provides that: Section 2. on 9 May 1984. on the same date. MANILA AND EUGENIA C. Perez. vs. on 10 March 1980. In the case at bar.R. respondents FACTS: Eugenia C. Manila. NATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION AND ARTURO L. where a penalty less punitive would suffice. affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of their claims and defenses. CREDO. — The worker may answer the allegations stated against him in the notice of dismissal within a reasonable period from receipt of such notice. dated 11 October 1983. Credo was administratively charged by Sisinio S. and when [Credo] was called by Lloren to his office to explain further the said instructions.G. G. to explain her side before Perez and NASECO's Committee on Personnel Affairs in connection with the administrative charges filed against her. then Personnel Clerk until she became Chief of Property and Records. 70295 November 29.R. Section 6. can only be issued after the employer has afforded the employee concerned ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. That Credo was not given ample opportunity to be heard and to defend herself is evident from the fact that the compliance with the injunction to apprise her of the charges filed against her and to afford her a chance to prepare for her defense was dispensed in only a day. thus rendering illusory Credo's right to security of tenure. Credo was called to meet Arturo L. and that any hearing which NASECO thought of affording her after 24 November 1983 would merely be pro forma or an exercise in futility . a reading of the guidelines in consonance with the express provisions of law on protection to labor 18(which encompasses the right to security of tenure) and the broader dictates of procedural due process necessarily mandate that notice of the employer's decision to dismiss an employee. THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION. effective 8 November 1983. even if proved. Credo was an employee of the National Service Corporation (NASECO). There is. 1 Sometime before 7 November 1983. could be considered to have been condoned by petitioners. janitorial and other similar manpower services to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and its agencies. Ministry of Labor and Employment. or on 18 November 1983.1988 EUGENIA C. PEREZ. or on 22 November 1983. with forfeiture of benefits. with the Arbitration Branch. regarding certain entry procedures in the company's Statement of Billings Adjustment. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. then Acting General Manager of NASECO. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on the wage-earner 13 . — Any employer who seeks to dismiss a worker shall furnish him a written notice stating the particular acts or omission constituting the grounds for his dismissal. Manager of Finance and Special Project and Evaluation Department of NASECO. she was promoted to Clerk Typist. — The employer shall immediately notify a worker in writing of a decision to dismiss him stating clearly the reasons therefor. Likewise. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. petitioner. a domestic corporation which provides security guards as well as messengerial. without due process.. Said charges alleged that Credo "did not comply with Lloren's instructions to place some corrections/additional remarks in the Statement of Billings Adjustment. whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. RULING: As guidelines for employers in the exercise of their power to dismiss employees for just causes. These are the notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and the subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. stemming from her non-compliance with Lloren's memorandum. the labor arbiter rendered a decision: 1) dismissing Credo's complaint. against NASECO for placing her on forced leave. Lloren. [Credo] showed resentment and behaved in a scandalous manner by shouting and uttering remarks of disrespect in the presence of her co-employees. 7 After both parties had submitted their respective position papers. Answer and Hearing. This is not effective compliance with the legal requirements aforementioned. and 2) directing NASECO to pay Credo separation pay equivalent to one half month's pay for every year of service. National Capital Region. while Credo was on forced leave. PEREZ. No. Credo filed a complaint. The employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representative. NASECO did not comply with these guidelines in effecting Credo's dismissal. his family to consider. It is not only because of the law's concern for the working man. respondents. vs. CREDO. 114944-83. Through the years.. xxx xxx xxx Section 5. Decision to dismiss. 3 Before the expiration of said 15-day leave. petitioners. this chance was given so perfunctorily. 2) petitioners failed in the burden of proving that the termination of Credo was for a valid or authorized cause. No. Although she was apprised and "given the chance to explain her side" of the charges filed against her. She was first employed with NASECO as a lady guard on 18 July 1975. in addition. docketed as Case No. The fact also that the Notice of Termination of Credo's employment (or the decision to dismiss her) was dated 24 November 1983 and made effective 1 December 1983 shows that NASECO was already bent on terminating her services when she was informed on 1 December 1983 of the charges against her. NASECO's Committee on Personnel Affairs deliberated and evaluated a number of past acts of misconduct or infractions attributed to her. Credo was placed on "Forced Leave" status for 1 5 days. 11 ISSUE: Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding that: 1) petitioners violated the requirements mandated by law on termination. 17 These guidelines mandate that the employer furnish an employee sought to be dismissed two (2) written notices of dismissal before a termination of employment can be legally effected. The committee recommended Credo's termination. and 4) the termination of Credo was not for a valid or authorized cause. Notice of dismissal. 1988 NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. with reasons therefor. 4 Likewise." 2 On 7 November 1983. 3) the alleged infractions committed by Credo were not proven or. After said meeting. if he so desires. L-69870 November 29.
e. for having been compelled to litigate because of the unlawful actuations of NASECO.00 for attorney's fees. The 1987 Constitution provides that: The civil service embraces all branches. No. including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter. Credo is entitled to three (3) years of backwages without deduction and qualification in view of the attendant circumstances in the case.R. the NASECO is a government-owned or controlled corporation without original charter. this Court had recognized the applicability of the Labor Code to. Juco. No. Credo. If reinstatement in any event is no longer possible because of supervening events. resourcefulness and attendance Considering that the acts or omissions for which Credo's employment was sought to be legally terminated were insufficiently proved. as to justify dismissal. and without loss of seniority rights and other privileges appertaining thereto. Credo P5. disputes involving terms and conditions of employment in government owned or controlled corporations. WHEREFORE. are ordered to: 1) reinstate Eugenia C. Petitioners in G. reinstatement is proper. NASECO's condonation thereof is gleaned from the fact that on 4 October 1983. cooperation. For "absent the reason which gave rise to [the employee's] separation from employment.Even if the allegations of improper conduct (discourtesy to superiors) were satisfactorily proven. among them. from 1 December 1983. As an admitted subsidiary of the NIDC. It would appear that. 70295. with three (3) years backwages. who are the private respondents in G. No. who are the private respondents in G. and 2) pay Eugenia C. lack of due process in effecting her dismissal.00 for moral damages and P5. 70295 are ordered to pay Eugenia C. Credo to her former position at the time of her termination. quantity of work.but prior to the ruling in National Housing Corporation vs." 29 And. 69870. dependability. there is no intention on the part of the employer to dismiss the employee concerned. the National Service Corporation (NASECO).000. in the interest of justice. it is reasonable to award her moral damages.R. petitioners in G. in addition to her backwages and damages as above described. or if such reinstatement is not possible. i. that is. to place her in a substantially equivalent position.R. No. To do otherwise would be oppressive to Credo and other employees similarly situated. in view of the foregoing. the NLRC has jurisdiction to accord relief to the parties. And. without qualification or deduction. because under the same 1973 Constitution . 69870.000.R. to be computed on her monthly salary at the time of her termination on 1 December 1983 14 . and the authority of the NLRC to exercise jurisdiction over. On the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs the instant case because it is the Constitution in place at the time of decision thereof. instrumentalities. subdivisions.. to cases that arose before its promulgation on 17 January 1985. Credo was given a salary adjustment for having performed in the job "at least [satisfactorily]" 27 and she was then rated "Very Satisfactory" 28as regards job performance. the challenged decision of the NLRC is AFFIRMED with modifications. a reasonable award for attorney's fees in her favor is in order. particularly in terms of quality of work. as a result of having been wrongfully dismissed. the holding in said case should not be given retroactive effect. separation pay equivalent to one-half month's salary for every year of service. and agencies of the Government. in turn a subsidiary of the PNB.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.