You are on page 1of 72



1. Differentiate labor standards law fro labor relations law. Are t!e two "t"all# e$%l"si&e'

Labor standards law is that labor law which prescribes terms and conditions of employment like Book III, Book IV, Title I and Book VI of the Labor Code. These books of the Labor Code deal with working conditions, wages, working conditions for women, minors, house helpers and homeworkers, medical and dental ser ices, occupational health and safety, termination and retirement. !n the other hand, labor relations law is that labor law which regulates the relations between employers and workers like Book V of the Labor Code which deals with labor organi"ations, collecti e bargaining, unfair labor practices and strikes and lockouts. Labor standards laws and labor relations laws are not mutually e#clusi e$ they complement to each other. Thus the law on strikes and lockouts which is and e#ample of labor relations law includes some pro isions on the security of tenure of workers who go on strike or who are locked out. These pro isions are clear e#amples of labor law relations. (.W!at is t!e Constit"tional basis of Arti%les )*11 re+ardin+ e an%i,ation of tenants' %The &tate shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collecti ely the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to recei e a 'ust share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the &tate shall encourage and undertake the 'ust distribution of all agricultural lands, sub'ect to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, de elopmental, or e(uity considerations, and sub'ect to the payment of 'ust compensation. In determining retention limits, the &tate shall respect the rights of small landowners. The &tate shall further pro ide incenti es for oluntary land-sharing.) (Article XIII, Section 4, 1987 Constitution) -. Is a %or,oration. of w!i%! se&ent# ,er%ent /)012 of t!e a"t!ori3ed and &otin+ %a,ital is owned and %ontrolled b# 4ili,ino %iti3ens. allowed to en+a+e in t!e re%r"it ent and ,la%e ent of wor5ers. lo%all# or o&erseas' E$,lain briefl#. NO. *rt. +, of the Labor Code e#plicitly re(uires that in order to (ualify for participation in the o erseas employment program, the corporation must at least possess se enty-fi e percent -,./0 of the authori"ed and oting capital stock of which is owned and controlled by 1ilipino citi"ens. 6. Can a re%r"iter be %on&i%ted of &iolatin+ a 7OEA Cir%"lar w!i%! was i ,le ented wit!o"t ,rior ,"bli%ation' NO. The 2!3* 434! Circular no. +, series of 5678 was oid. 9here the administrati e circular in (uestion is one of those issuances which should be published for its effecti ity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an e#isting law pursuant to a alid delegation. Considering that 2!3* *dministrati e Circular :o. +, &eries of 5678 has not as yet been published or filed with the :ational *dministrati e ;egister, the same is ineffecti e and ma not be enforced (Philsa International Placement and Services Corp vs Secretar! o" #$%&, ' ( )o 1*+144, April 4, ,**1). 8. Is t!e absen%e of an e ,lo# ent a &alid defense in a %ase of ille+al re%r"it ent' E$,lain. NO. the law is clear on the matter. 2ri ate respondents further argue that they cannot be held liable by petitioner because no employment contract between him and &tep-<p *gency had been appro ed by the 2!3*. They also claim that the absence of a Special Power of Attorney and an Affidavit of Responsibility, as re(uired under &ections 5 and +, ;ule 5, Book III of the 2!3* ;ules and ;egulations only pro es that they did not deploy petitioner to &ingapore.

Red Notes in Labor Law

College of Law LAW

San Beda LABOR

Their argument is far from persuasi e. &urely, they cannot e#pect us to utili"e their noncompliance with the 2!3* ;ules and ;egulations as a basis in absol ing them. To do so would be tantamount to gi ing premium to acts done in iolation of established rules. *t most, pri ate respondents= act of deploying petitioner to &ingapore without complying with the 2!3* re(uirements only made them susceptible to cancellation or suspension of license as pro ided by &ection +, ;ule I, Book VI of 2!3* ;ules and ;egulations. (-ornales v )%(C, ' ( )o 11894+, 1*, ,**1). 9. Is t!ere a re:"ire ent t!at a ,!#si%ian attend to a si%5 sea an' "st be a%%redited b# t!e 7OEA before !e %an

This Court also finds no basis on -sic0 the petitioners= contention that the companydesignated >physician? must also be accredited with the 2!3* before he can engage in the medical treatment of a sick seaman. There is nothing in the &tandard 3mployment Contract that pro ides this accreditation re(uirement, and e en if there is, this would be absurd and contrary to public policy as its effect will deny and depri e the ailing seaman of his basic right to seek immediate medical attention from any competent physician. The lack of 2!3* accreditation of a physician who actually treated the ailing seaman does not render the findings of such physician -declaring the seaman permanently disabled0 less authoritati e or credible. To our mind, it is the competence of the attending physician, not the 2!3* accreditation, that determines the true health status of the patient-seaman, which in this instant case, is >sic? the attending physicians from the 4anila @octors Aospital ('erman /arine A0encies, Inc v )%(C, ' ( )o 14,*49, 1anuar! +*, ,**1). ). ;artina is a %ler5 t#,ist in <os,i%io de San =ose. a %!aritable instit"tion de,endent for its e$isten%e on %ontrib"tions and donations fro well wis!ers. S!e renders wor5 ele&en /112 !o"rs a da# b"t !as not been +i&en o&erti e ,a# sin%e !er ,la%e of wor5 is a %!aritable instit"tion. Is So%orro entitled to o&erti e ,a#' E$,lain briefl#. >ES. 4artina is entitled to o ertime compensation. &he does not fall under any of the e#ceptions enumerated under *rt. 7+ of the Labor Code. &aid pro ision e(ui ocally states that %Title I, Book III of the Labor Code dealing with hours of work, weekly rest periods, holidays, ser ice incenti e lea es and ser ice charges, co ers all employees in all establishments, whether for profit or not, e#cept the following employees? a. Bo ernment employees b. 4anagerial employees %. !fficers and members of the managerial staff d. 1ield personnel e. 4embers of the family of the employer who and dependent on him for support f. @omestic helpers +. 2ersons in the personal ser ice of another !. 9orkers paid by results. * co ered employee who works beyond eight -70 hours is entitled to o ertime compensation. @. Aris!na earns 7).00 for e&er# ani%"re s!e does in t!e barbers!o, of a friend w!i%! !as nineteen /1B2 e ,lo#ees. At ti es. s!e ta5es !o e 71)8.00 a da# and at ot!er ti es s!e earns not!in+. S!e now %lai s !olida# ,a#. Is Aris!na entitled to t!is benefit' NO. :emia is not entitled to holiday pay. *rt. 7+ of the Labor Code pro ide that workers who are paid by results are, among others, not entitled to holiday pay. :emia is a worker who is paid by results. &he earns 2,.CC for e ery manicure she does. B. As a tire an in a +asoline station. w!i%! is o,en twent# fo"r /(62 !o"rs a da# wit! onl# fi&e /82 e ,lo#ees. =oewa wor5ed fro 10?00 ,. . "ntil )?00 A.;. of t!e followin+ da#. <e %lai s to be entitled to ni+!t s!ift differential. Is !e %orre%t' NO. In the !mnibus ;ules Implementing the Labor Code -Book III, ;ule II, dealing with night shift differential0 it is pro ided that its pro isions on night shift differential shall :!T apply to employees of %retail and ser ice establishments regularly employing not more that fi e -.0



San Beda Colle+e of

workers). Because of this pro ision, Doewa is not entitled to night shift differential because the gasoline station where he works -being a ser ice establishment0 has only fi e employees. 10. A an"fa%t"rin+ fir wit! 800 e ,lo#ees s%!ed"les S"nda# as t!e latterCs rest da#. 4ift# wor5ers w!o were se&ent!*da# ad&entists and (00 wor5ers w!o belon+ to t!e I+lesia ni Aristo obDe%t and ,ro,ose t!at t!eir rest da#s be s%!ed"led on Sat"rda#s and T!"rsda#s. res,e%ti&el#. T!e %o ,an# %lai s t!at t!e ,ro,osed s%!ed"le will serio"sl# ,reD"di%e or obstr"%t its an"fa%t"rin+ o,erations and ref"ses to re*s%!ed"le t!e rest da# as re:"ested. a. Do t!e se&ent! da# ad&entists and t!eir own rest da#s' e bers of t!e I+lesia ni Aristo !a&e an# ri+!t to %!oose


>ES. The employer, under the law, is re(uired to respect the preference of the employee if the same is based on religious grounds. The employee shall make known his preference to the employer in writing at least -,0 days before the desired effecti ity of the initial rest day preffered -&ec.E, ;ule III, Book I, Implementing ;ules and ;egulations0. b. Ass" in+ t!at t!e %lai of t!e e ,lo#er is well*fo"nded. %an it le+all# ref"se to re*s%!ed"le t!e rest da# of t!e e ,lo#ees in&ol&ed' >ES. If the employer cannot resort to other remedial measures, it may schedule the rest days of the employees in ol ed on the days of their choice for at least + days in a month -&ec.E, ;ule III, Book III, Implementing ;ule and ;egulations0. 11. T!is #ear. National <eroes Da# /A"+"st (82 falls on a S"nda#. S"nda# is t!e rest da# of Bonifa%io w!ose dail# rate is 7800.00. a. If Bonifa%io is re:"ired b# !is e ,lo#er to wor5 on t!at da# for ei+!t /@2 !o"rs. !ow "%! s!o"ld !e be ,aid for !is wor5' E$,lain. 1or working on his scheduled rest day, according to *rt. 68-a0, Bonifacio should be paid 2.CC.CC -his daily rate0 plus 25.C.CC -8C/ of his daily rate F 2G.C.CC. This amount 2G.C.CC should be multiplied by + F 25,8CC.CC. this is the amount that Bonifacio as employee working on his scheduled rest day which is also a regular holiday should recei e. *rt. 6E-c0 of the Labor Code pro ides that an employee shall be paid a compensation e(ui alent to twice his regular rate for working on any regular holiday. The %regular rate) of Bonifacio on 4ay 5,+CC+ with an additional thirty percent because the day is also his scheduled rest day. 1ormulaH /a2 To +et rest da# ,a# Ste, 1H Bet hourly wage rate Daily Basic Wage Number of hours worked X special holiday wage rate

Red Notes in Labor Law

e 0 (P2** 3 8 hrs) 4 1+*5

6 P81 ,2 (rest da! 7a0e rate)

Ste, (H Compute wage between 7HCCpm I .HCC pm using rest day wage rate Number of hours worked e0 8hrs 4 X special holiday wage rate 6 P82*

P81 ,2

/b2 To +et re+"lar !olida# ,a# Rest day Wage rate X e0 P82* 4 Regular holiday ,**5 6 P1+**


. &ia already admitted she worked an e#tra hour daily. Sia %lai s t!at Da as%oCs basi% salar# of 7160.2 6 ado. and cannot be contradicted unless pre iously shown to ha e been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made...***).. Aoliday wage rate J 8C/ of holiday rate -+CC/0 Ste. at 9?-0 in t!e e&enin+ dail#. -? C!42<T*TI!: 8am. .. 1or it is necessary to ha e a clear and definite delineation between an employee=s regular and o ertime compensation to thwart iolation of the labor standards pro ision of the Labor Code (#amasco vs )%(C. Thus.lo#er.t !olida#s and S"nda#s.ensation t!e# alle+edl# a+reed ". In iew of &ia=s formal admission that @amasco worked beyond eight hours daily. of ! Hours = OT Premium Pay e 0 (+* 5 4 P+. if there be any.2) E P+. :o further proof is re(uired.a#' Dudicial admissions made by parties in the pleadings. +CC+ should be di ided by 7 to determine his hourly rate of 25G+. 1-.hrs -----------P842 ** Ste.CC.. Sia.. such arrangement. e en assuming that @amasco recei ed a wage which is higher than the minimum pro ided by law.00 a da# is ore t!an eno"+! to %o&er t!e Fone !o"r e$%ess wor5G w!i%! is t!e %o . If !e wor5s for ten /102 !o"rs on t!at da#. "%! s!o"ld !e re%ei&e for !is 25. 2* no o" $9 hours (2pm : 1*pm) 6 .College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR b.HCC pm I 5Cpm [(30% X Wage Per Hour) + Wage Per Hour] No. in the absence of an e#press agreement to that effect. the latter is entitled to o ertime compensation. +CC+ is 28+. or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusi e. ad its t!at Da as%oCs wor5 starts at @?-0 in t!e ornin+ and ends ".a# a Co . public respondent gra ely erred in deleting the award of o ertime pay to @amasco on the prete#t that the claim has no factual basis. must appear in the manner re(uired by law on how o ertime compensation must be determined. ' ( )o 112722... &till. (H Compute !T 2remium 2ay between .** ** .lain.hrs 4 P.2 Ste.on.8* ** 842 . the amount that Bonifacio is entitled to recei e for his o ertime work per hour on 4ay 5.. W!at ot!er e&iden%es are re:"ired to warrant t!e award of o&erti e . This hourly rate should be multiplied by + -the number of hours he worked o ertime0.. e$ 4. t!e e . it does not follow that any additional compensation due her can be offset by her pay in e#cess of the minimum.8CC. Thus. 7(. wo"ld t!at s%!e e be %onsidered &alid' 69 Law . <owe&er.2pm .. !ow wor5' E$. no further e idence being re(uired to pro e the same... . hours 8hrs 4 P. 1H Bet hourly wage rate Daily Basic Wage Number of hours worked e0 X special holiday wage rate (P1+** 3 8 hrs ) 4 .t wor5in+ !o"rs be#ond @ !o"rs a da#' If t!e wor5ers do not :"estion s"%! an arran+e ent. #ecem.CC which is the amount that Bonifacio is to recei e for working on 4ay 5.**5 6 P+.168 P1+** Total Ta5e <o e 7a# San Beda Colle+e of 1(. 4oreo er.

It would neither be fair nor 'ust to allow pri ate respondents to reco er something they ha e not earned and could not ha e earned because they did not render ser ices at the Nalibo office during the stated period (A@lan &lectric Cooperative Incorporated v )%(C.. protect . %td .lain. 1anuar! .2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS >ES. In the case before us. ACs ana+e ent .orate fi%tion Red Notes in Labor Law 68 It is a fundamental principle in corporation law that a corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it is connected.14+9. should such change be necessary for its operations. when the concept of separate legal entity is used to defeat public con enience. The facts indicate a concerted effort on the part of respondents to remo e petitioners from the company and thus abate the growth of the union and block its actions to enforce their demands in accordance with the Labor &tandards laws. In Interphil %a. that %the test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees within the meaning of section -a0 -50 is whether the employer has engaged in conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free e#ercise of employeesM rights under section 8 of the * 19.8.r.18).rin%i. I w!o also owned B Se%"rit# A+en%# /BSA2. a toba%%o an"fa%t"rin+ fir . or otherwise illegally pre ented from working (Calte4 (e"iner! &mplo!ees Association (C(&A) vs ?rillantes. between A and t!e +"ards. the laborer was able. to EH8C 2. alle+in+ t!at t!at t!ere was no e . the two-shift schedule while their CB* was still in force and e en prior thereto. The two-shift schedule effecti ely changed the working hours stipulated in the CB*.)A9< vs Insular %i"e Assurance Co .egular 9orking Aours K * normal workday shall consist of not more than eight -70 hours. Labor *rbiter Caday found that respondent company had to adopt a continuous +E-hour work daily schedule by reason of the nature of its business and the demands of its clients. ' ( )o 1.OTION be +ranted' E$.4. %td .2. at the discretion of the company. and it is not necessary that there be direct e idence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does ha e an ad erse effect on selforgani"ation and collecti e bargaining.lo#ees of B for ed a "nion. willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out.lain t!e . &mplo!ees Association. W!en t!e e . a situation which we find is not present in the instant case. .4. Aowe er. The schedule of shift work shall be maintained$ howe er the company may change the pre ailing work time at its discretion.+7 SC(A . The employees are deemed to ha e wai ed the eight-hour schedule since they followed. or management and employee of a Lfair dayMs wage for a fair dayMs laborL remains as the basic factor in determining employeesM wages. and that the employees shall obser e such rules as ha e been laid down by the company. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay unless. The Court held in Insular %i"e Assurance Co . suspended or dismissed.lo#ee relations!i. t!e %o"nsel of A filed a . . It was established that the employees adhered to the said work schedule since 5677. The 4otion should not be granted. 18.***). E$. It is e ident from the foregoing pro ision that the working hours may be changed. without any (uestion or complaint. LABOR LAW NO. a. . . 'ustify wrong. S!o"ld t!e .le of FA 4AIRS DA> WAHE 4OR A 4AIRS DA>CS LABORG The age-old rule go erning the relation between labor and capital.) b. a.79 SC(A . A Co. they cannot now be heard to claim that the o ertime boycott is 'ustified because they were not obliged to work beyond eight hours. is owned b# .44 (1971).4.reter inated t!e se%"rit# %ontra%t between A and B fir s. 16.otion to Dis iss.lo#er*e . *s the employees assented by practice to this arrangement.H8C *. The regular working hours for the Company shall be from .oratories &mplo!ees <nion ==> v Interphil (' ( )o 14. of course.ier%in+ t!e &eil of %or. W!en t!e +"ards filed a %ase of ille+al dis issal and UL7 a+ainst bot! A and !ereto' Is t!e do%trine of . should such change be necessary in the operations of the Company. *ll employees shall obser e such rules as ha e been laid down by the company for the purpose of effecting control o er working hours.**1) it was held by the Court thatH &ection 5. #ecem..

by irtue of a contract for security ser ices. B&*. and ot!er benefits a+ainst Us!io.erator w!o waited on t!e s!o. and other companies belonging to its owners. The relationship of employer-employee.oreo&er. owners wo"ld %olle%t t!e ser&i%e fees fro its %"sto ers and disb"rse t!e sa e to t!e inde. the control of the premises$ the duty to supply the premises. were .G It f"rt!er %lai ed t!at it was a re%o+ni3ed and a%%e.ted trade . 7ando# was free to .s.erator. and terms of payment. appliances. On t!e ot!er !and. merge them into one. owner and t!e free lan%e o.endent %ontra%tor.Js %"sto ers s!o"ld t!e latter re:"ire !is ser&i%es. and bust their newly-organi"ed union which was then beginning to become acti e in demanding the companyMs compliance with Labor &tandards laws.e%"liar to t!e a"to s. /Investment Plannin0 Corp vs SSS. it was shown that B&* was a mere ad'unct of * Company.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR fraud or defend crime. Q"e3on Cit#. It is the total situation that controls. The purported sale of the shares of the former stockholders to a new set of stockholders who changed the name of the corporation appears to be part of a scheme to terminate the ser ices of B&*=s security guards posted at the premises of * Co. or in case of two corporations. !olida# . . In the case at bar. and payment of the contractorMs ser ants-. Is !e %orre%t' 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of .. employees are those who as a matter of economic reality are dependent upon the business to which they render ser ice. in Banawe Street. ' ( )o 11.arts s!o.erfor wor5 for an#one else. t!e s!o.lo#ee b"t a free lan%e ises of Us!ioJs %ar a%%essor# s!o.laint for ille+al dis issal. and B&* pro ided security ser ices only to * Co. Kbot! benefitin+ fro t!e .osition !i self near ot!er %ar a%%essor# s!o. *mong the factors to be considered are whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business$ whether the work is part of the employerMs general business$ the nature and e#tent of the work$ the skill re(uired$ the term and duration of the relationship$ the right to assign the performance of the work to another$ the power to terminate the relationship$ the e#istence of a contract for the performance of a specified piece of work$ the control and super ision of the work$ the employerMs powers and duties with respect to the hiring. tools. the skills re(uired and the in estments in the facilities for work and opportunities for profit or loss from acti ities. . non*. Dis%"ss t!e do%trine on t!e Aeconomic realit! o" the relations o" partiesB test wit! res. pro ided * Co.s to offer !is ser&i%es to %"sto ers of said s!o.**1) 19. the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons. as !e did not . 7ando# was an ele%tri%ian w!o wor5ed wit!in t!e .e%t to t!e e$isten%e of e . which determines the liability for employment ta#es under the &ocial &ecurity *ct was not to be determined solely by the idea of control which an alleged employer may or could e#ercise o er the details of the ser ice tendered to his business by the worker or workers.. records show that B&* and * Co.lo#er*e . Control is characteristically associated with the employer -employee relationship. Aowe er.a# ent of o&erti e . . /a! +*. manner. (#e %eon vs )%(C. material and labor$ and the mode. w!i%! o&ed to dis iss t!e %o .are . according to his own manner and methods and free from the control and direction of his principal.lo#ee relations!i. ind"str# o. 7* SC(A 1+9) 1). the Court cannot allow * Co. Us!io ar+"es t!at in fine. (/A=I)C$ Corporation v $ple. to use its separate corporate personality to shield itself from liability for illegal acts committed against its employees. taking into account permanency of the relations.1 SC(A 9.4) The concept of independent contractor is interminably linked with the economic reality test when we consider the fact that such person is one who carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the 'ob to do a piece of work on his own account and under his own responsibility. e#cept as to the result of the work. 7ando# insists t!at !e is entitled to t!e benefits be%a"se !e was lo#al to Us!io. but in the application of social legislation.881. firing. as an inde.artners in of t!eir Doint efforts.eratin+ alon+ t!e stret%! of Banawe Street t!at s!o.laint %lai in+ t!at 7ando# was not an e .endent %ontra%tor at t!e end of a wee5. <e filed a %o . <nder these circumstances. ha e the same owners and business address. The separate 'uridical personality of a corporation may also be disregarded when such corporation is a mere alter ego or business conduit of another person. with security guards to safeguard its premises.ra%ti%e .

lo# ent of wor5ers. The power of control is the most important factor in determining the e#istence of an employer-employee relationship. 1@. these independent operators allow the Company to collect their ser ice fee from the customer and this fee is gi en back to the independent operator at the end of the week. The Company has no control o er and does not restrict the methodology or the means and manner by which these operators perform their work. . In effect. These operators are not super ised by any employee of the Company since the results of their work is controlled by the customers who hire them. as the case may be. These independent operators are allowed by the Company to wait on Company customers who would be re(uiring their ser ices. In 'ob contracting or subcontracting. Likewise. 9hat e#ists is not 'ob contracting or subcontracting but a direct employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees and the 'ob contractor becomes merely the agent of the principal or the subcontractor. the principal then becomes the employer of the employees engaged to accomplish the 'ob or ser ice. there are only two parties in ol ed the employer and the employee. and inde. d. there are independent. the four-fold test of employer-employee relationship should be satisfied by the contractor or subcontractor in relation to the employee it engages to accomplish the contracted or subcontracted 'ob or ser ice. Aas the power to select and hire the employee$ %. * 2. They are not sub'ect to any disciplinary measures from the Company. In job contracting / subcontracting.2* cannot be a subcontractor. and for this purpose employs its own workers.lo#ee relations!i. This relationship is established through a four-fold test. LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . there are three parties in ol edH a. 1B. In e#change for the pri ileges of fa orable recommendation by the Company and immediate access to the customers in need of their ser ices.endent Dob %ontra%tin+L s"b%ontra%tin+' >ES. @irectly e#ercises control and super ision o er the employee not only as to the results of the work but also as to the means employed to attain this result$ b. The employees engaged by the 'ob contractor or subcontractor to accomplish the 'ob or ser ice. under which the employerH a. The 'ob contractor or subcontractor which has the capacity to independently undertake the performance of the 'ob or ser ice$ and %. is t!ere a differen%e between an ordinar# e . If the four-fold test is satisfied not by the 'ob contractor or subcontractor but by the principal. The employer need not actually e#ercise this power.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS NO. sa e merely for the inherent rules of general beha ior and good conduct C<shio /ar@etin0 v )%(C. the Company has no control as an employer o er these operators. In an ordinary employer-employee relationship. Is t!ere a differen%e between a Dob %ontra%tor or s"b%ontra%tor and a . In t!e e . as it may deem necessary or appropriate.2*Ms employees. freelance operators who are permitted by the Company to position themsel es pro#imate to the company premises. It simply recruits workers for the purpose of placing them with another employer so that the workers recruited will not become the 2.ri&ate re%r"it ent and . In such cases. they do not earn fi#ed wages from the Company as they earn their ariable fees from the customers of the Company. Aas the power to transfer and dismiss or discharge ent a+en%# /7R7A2' >ES. the agent of his contractor. the contractor or subcontractor is also referred to as an independent contractor. * 'ob contractor or subcontractor directly undertakes a specific 'ob or ser ice for a principal. Aas the obligation to pay the employees his or her wages and other benefits.94 SC(A 87+ (1998)D. It is enough that the employer retains the right to e#ercise this power. The principal who decides to farm out a 'ob or ser ice to a subcontractor$ b.lo#er* e . In stark contrast to the Company=s regular employees. They are not sub'ect to regular hours and days of work and may come and go as they wish.

8 and 56. *rticle +7C. pro'ect or seasonal employees$ %. It sets the process and mechanism. under which the principal. :o. @. 5C. according to its own manner and method. which classifies employees into regular. for subcontracting arrangements in the construction industry$ and !.E7. and %im v )%(C. 8H a. The contractor or subcontractor has substantial capital or in estment$ 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . @epartment !rder :o. (1. The following laws and rules also apply in addition to *rticles 5CG to 5C6 of the Labor CodeH a. *rticle +57C of the Ci il Code. No. 56. which was then the implementing rules on *rticles 5CG to 5C6$ b.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR * 'ob contractor or subcontractor is go erned primarily by *rticles 5CG-5C6 of the Labor Code.2* needs an authority or license from @!L3 to legally undertake recruitment and placement acti ities.48+*. Is Dob %ontra%tin+ or s"b%ontra%tin+ ille+al' NO. Labor Code.epublic *ct :o. It recogni"es the continuing alidity of contracts entered into when @. :o. particularly *rticles 5CG to 5C6 thereof. :os.. (0.!. .!. =e. ' ( )o 1. 8. * 2.!. W!at are t!e i . pro ided the re(uirements for legitimate 'ob contracting or subcontracting are satisfied and the prohibition against labor-only contracting or subcontracting is obser ed.. can be held liable for any negligent acts of the employees of a labor-only contractor$ d. . The contractor or subcontractor carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the 'ob. by which a new set of rules shall be formulated. Durisprudence interpreting the foregoing laws$ f.. &eries of 5668. These pro isions prescribe the conditions for the regulation of 'ob contracting or subcontracting and the rights and obligations of parties to this arrangement. and @.ortant feat"res of D.!. =e. 5C was still in force$ d. It re oked @epartment !rder :o. ' ( )o 1. :o. 'urisprudence. ((. 1999 . Eino! v )%(C.8288. which is through consultations through the Tripartite Industrial 2eace Council. It prohibits labor-only contracting$ %.***. *rticle +E7 -c0 of the Labor Code. and its implementing rules$ e. W!at law or r"les +o&ern Dob %ontra%tin+ or s"b%ontra%tin+' The basic law go erning 'ob contracting or subcontracting is the Labor Code. Contractual stipulations pro ided these are not in conflict with Labor Code pro isions. which regulates the operation of security agencies. It is a temporary measure$ e. * pri ate recruitment and placement agency is go erned by *rticles +.O. &eries of 566. and free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work e#cept as to the results thereof$ b. the definition of legitimate subcontracting is as followsH Contracting or subcontracting shall be legitimate if the following conditions concurH a. restrain or coerce employees in the e#ercise of their right to self-organi"ation$ b. to 86 of the Labor Code and the rules implementing these articles. * 'ob contractor or subcontractor does not need authority from the @epartment of Labor and 3mployment -@!L30 to undertake a subcontracted 'ob or ser ice. work or ser ice on its own account and under its own responsibility. -' The following are the important features of @.. which took effect on +6 4ay +CC5 was the latest set of rules released by the @!L3 implementing *rticles 5CG to 5C6. which disallows contracting out of ser ices or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with.ruar! *. In two recent cases decided by the &upreme Court.ruar! 19. in a ci il suit for damages instituted by an in'ured person.

L. (6. *dmark clearly pro ides that the agreement is for the supply of sales promoting merchandising ser ices rather than one of manpower placement.ital s"ffi%ient to establis! le+iti ate s"b%ontra%tin+' &ubstantial capital refers to such in estment. *dmark as a legitimate 'ob contractor areH!ibitin+ labor*onl# %ontra%tin+' W!at is t!e obDe%ti&e and t!e . it cannot independently undertake to perform a contracted or subcontracted 'ob or ser ice.L. It was likewise engaged in the publication business. it is still necessary for it to show that it has the capacity to be an independent contractor. the &upreme Court has held that it need not show e idence that it has in estment in the form of tools. *s such. tools. the %2henomenon. *dmark states that it is a firm engaged in promotional. It had its own capital assets to carry out its promotion business. as e idenced by its maga"ine. It had se eral merchandising contracts with companies like 2urefoods. b. The Constitution. which allows the &ecretary of Labor to distinguish between labor-only contracting and 'ob contracting to pre ent any iolation or circum ention of the Labor Code. *dmark is a legitimate independent contractor. 1or e#ample. materials and e(uipment to ser ice its clients. 9here a 'ob contractor or subcontractor is highly capitali"ed. If #o" are t!e %o"nsel of an a+en%# w!i%! is bein+ %!ar+ed of LABOR*ONL> CONTRACTINH. and social and welfare benefits. which pro ides that the &tate shall protect labor and promote its welfare. (-. *mong the circumstances which tend to establish the status of @.resent to ref"te t!e %!ar+e' E$. (8.lain. That is. The &3C registration certificate of @. security of tenure.CC. I would present the same documents shown in the case of &scario vs )%(C. . w!at e&iden%e will #o" . or subscribed capital stock that would indicate the subcontractorMs capacity to undertake the contracted or subcontracted work or ser ice independently.L. b. It then had current assets amounting to 2G million and is therefore a highly capitali"ed enture. among others. %. :abisco Biscuits and Licron.4*22. The ob'ecti e of the &tate in prohibiting labor-only contracting is to ensure that labor laws are followed and to pre ent the e#ploitation of workers. e(uipment. Corona supply. marketing and merchandising. *dmark was actually engaged in se eral acti ities such as ad ertising. * labor-only contractor is one who presents itself as an employer e en if it does not ha e capital to run a business or capacity to ensure that its workers are paid their wages and other benefits as prescribed by law. It owned se eral motor ehicles and other tools. promotions. publication. marketing and merchandising acti ities. To allow a labor-only contractor to operate is to gi e it an opportunity to circum ent the law and to e#ploit workers. ' ( )o 1. it can undertake the performance of the contract according to its own manner and method. work premises. It paid rentals of 28C. ad ertising. Aowe er. W!at is s"bstantial %a. It had an authori"ed capital stocks of 2.L. whether it is in the form of money.C+C for the office space it occupied. and shall guarantee basic labor rights including 'ust and humane terms and conditions of employment and the right to self-organi"ation. free from the super ision of the principal in all matters e#cept as to the results of the work. The agreement between the principal and the contractor or subcontractor assures the contractual employees entitlement to all occupational safety and health standards. machineries. a contractor or subcontractor with a capital stock of 25 4illion which is fully subscribed and paid for has been deemed by the &upreme Court to be a highly capitali"ed enture which satisfies the re(uirement of substantial capital.ital' Is s"bstantial %a. W!at is t!e basis of t!e State in . work premises. facilities. The ser ice contract between C4C and @. *rticle 5CG of the Labor Code. LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 .2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS!ibition' The basis of the &tate in prohibiting labor-only contracting areH a. 1une 8.L. machineries.) d. @. e(uipment. to witH %@. to be considered legitimate.CCC.***. free e#ercise of the right to self organi"ation.

wherein the former a ailed of the security ser ices pro ided by the latter. t!e 7RINCI7AL E. (). There e#isted a contractual agreement between 2T&I and 3*BL3.lo#ees' NO. tools. The principal will become the employer as if it directly employed the workers engaged to undertake the contracted or subcontracted 'ob or ser ice. The contractor or subcontractor will be treated as the agent of the principal. (@. firearms with ammunitions. in order for the security agency to comply with the new wage and allowance rates it has to pay the security guards. 2remises considered. the 9age !rders made specific pro ision to amend e#isting contracts for security ser ices by allowing the ad'ustment of the consideration paid by the principal to the security agency concerned.lo#er of s"%! e . the security guards= immediate recourse for the payment of the increases is with their direct employer.7LO>ER or t!e AHENC>' E$. therefore.lo#er s!o"ld be !eld liable for t!e wa+es of se%"rit# +" a"to ati%all# be%o e t!e e . The employees will become employees of the principal. the ultimate liability for the payment of the increases rests with the principal (Securit! and Credit Investi0ation Inc v )%(C. 8. representations made by the contractor or subcontractor to the employees will bind the principal. the security agency collects from its client payment for its security ser ices.**1).rin%i. 3*BL3.lo#ees it en+a+es to . the guards= bonds. which arises from the third and fourth paragraphs of *rticle 5CG. :o. is absolute and direct.8.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR (9. a principal has two types of liability in relation to the employees of the contractor or subcontractor. The principal and the contractor or subcontractor will be solidarily treated as the employer. uniforms and other e(uipments >sic?. will t!e . It will only make the principal 'ointly and se erally liable with the contractor or subcontractor for payment of the employeesM wages to the e#tent of the work performed under the contract. The second type of liability.erfor t!e Dob or ser&i%e. In return. This payment co ers the wages for the security guards and also e#penses for their super ision and training. ' ( )o 114+18.a# t!e wa+es of t!e e . materials and supplies necessary for the maintenance of a security force. the principal shall be held responsible to the workers in the same manner and e#tent as if it directly employed these workers. If a le+iti ate inde. pursuant to *rticle +86 -e0. In such cases. accessories. mere inability of the contractor or subcontractor to pay wages will not automatically make the principal the direct employer. a petition for cancellation of union registration may be filed against it. If the labor-only contracting acti ity is undertaken by a legitimate labor organi"ation. Aowe er. W!i%! e . &ince the act of an agent is the act of the principal. This liability arises when there is labor-only contracting as defined in @. The first type of liability is limited. In the end therefore. sub'ect to the classifications of employees under *rticle +7 of the Labor Code. %. d. 1anuar! . and is go erned by the first two paragraphs of *rticle 5CG. . Thus.!. b. is the amendment of the contract as to the consideration to co er the ser ice contractor=s payment of the increase mandated. 9hat the 9age !rders re(uire. <nder *rticle 5CG.lain.endent Dob %ontra%tor or s"b%ontra%tor %annot . 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . W!at are t!e effe%ts of a labor*onl# %ontra%tin+ arran+e ent' The following are the effectsH a. It will be responsible to them for all their entitlements and benefits under the labor laws.

:othing in *rticle 5CG indicates that insol ency or unwillingness to pay by the contractor or direct employer is a prere(uisite for the 'oint and se eral liability of the principal or indirect employer. task. does not apply to or permit such kind of deposit. The former is an independent contractor where said agent and others similarly placed areH a. %td vs )%( and t!e Dob %ontra%tor "nder Arti%les 10) and 10B.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS (B. 1978.+779*. as in the case at bar.lo#ees' NO. Is t!is re:"ire ent a"t!ori3ed "nder Arti%le 116 of t!e Labor Code' E$. a peddler formally entered into a peddling contract with petitioner for the purchase and sale of Cosmos softdrinks. but also to the internal affairs of the insurance company. it was held where. it is incumbent upon the dri er to Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . Is t!e Doint and se&eral liabilit# of t!e .lain. -(. the line should be drawn between rules that merely ser e as guidelines toward the achie ement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it. which aims only to promote the result. re(uired to put up performance bond$ %. 'ob or pro'ect.) Logically. and those that control or fi# the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. There is no dispute that as a matter of practice in the ta#i industry. '( )o %.endent ". 1994). which on that account. if not guarantees. The re(uirement for deposit to defray any deficiency in the remittance of dri ers %boundary) is not lawful. payment of the workers= performance of any work.lo#eesG of a b"siness establis! ent' inde. ' ( )o 84484.endent %ontra%tor of an ins"ran%e %o .a# ents. /arch . W!en are Fsales enG %onsidered Fe . sub'ect to a set of rules and regulations go erning the performance of their duties under the agreement with the company and termination of the ser ices for certain causes$ d.on t!e insol&en%# or "nwillin+ness to .2. de. /A=I)C$ 9radin0 Corporation v $ple. not re(uired to report for work at any time. Constitution (#evelopment ?an@ o" the Philippines vs )%(C. A ta$i%ab %o . create no employer-employee relationship unlike the of t!e %ontra%tor or dire%t e .an# re:"ired its ta$i dri&ers to a5e de. not only to the relations between insurer and insured. paid compensation in the form of commissions based on percentages of their sales.a# on t!e . indicating the manner of selling the goods.rin%i. any balance of commissions earned being payable to their legal representati es in the e ent of death or resignation$ b. whereby the petitioner pro ides the peddler with deli ery truck and bears the cost of gasoline and maintenance ofM the truck$ while on the other hand the peddler employs the dri er and helpers and take care of the latterMs compensation and social security contributions. the peddlers are independent contractors and not employees of petitioner. after a tour of duty. %There is no employer-employee relationship between a commission agent and an in estment company. as in the business of insurance.osits to defra# an# defi%ien%# w!i%! t!e latter a# in%"r in t!e re ittan%e of t!eir Fbo"ndar#G and to %o&er %ar was! . 1989. This 'oint and se eral liability facilitates. *rticle 55E. The first.endent %ontra%tors rat!er t!an re+"lar LABOR LAW In. which addresses both the result and the means used to achie e it. The distinction ac(uires particular rele ance in the case of an enterprise affected with public interest. )ov 12. 1une 17. materials or e(uipment supplied by the employer. But the re(uirement for deposit for car wash payments is lawful. W!en is an Fins"ran%e a+entG dee ed an' *s held in Insular %i"e Insurance Compan!. thus gi ing the workers ample protection as mandated by the 567. nor to de ote their time e#clusi ely to working for the company nor to submit a record of their acti ities. which pro ides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to tools. is sub'ect to regulations by the &tate with respect. -0. and who finally shouldered their own selling and transportation e#penses. -1. in relation to Arti%le 109 of t!e Labor Code.

ser ices and necessities$ and the purchasing power of the peso. to a female employee as against a male employee. pro ided it is not deleterious to her health and safety. 1urthermore. It is distinct from an obligation imposed by law. Au0ust . -).a# t!e aternit# lea&e benefits' The member shall recei e a maternity benefit e(ui alent to 5CC/ of her a erage daily salary credit multiplied by GC days for normal deli ery$ or by . Beneficiaries thereof are therefore. at the same time. 2ayment of a lesser compensation. an employer may not be allowed to renege on its obligation under a collecti e bargaining agreement should. The wages in different regions are not uniform.ositions b"t lo%ated in different re+ions of t!e %o"ntr# %onstit"te wa+e distortion as %onte . Does a wa+e in%rease +ranted . -8. <nless otherwise pro ided by law. 1999). Can a wo an be e .lated b# law' E$. -6. it will be noted that there was nothing to pre ent the dri ers from cleaning the ta#i units themsel es. ' ( )o 81144. 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . resulting in the elimination or the se ere dimunition of the distinction between the two groups (Prudential ?an@ Association vs Prudential ?an@ and 9rust Co . for work of e(ual alue$ b. be they in the form of salary increases or changes in the salary scale are aimed at one thing . W!at are %onsidered as a%ts of dis%ri ination a+ainst wo en' The following are considered acts of discriminationH a. -9.lo#ed in an# 5ind of o%%". 3mployee benefits deri ed from law are e#clusi e of benefits arri ed at through negotiation and agreement unless otherwise pro ided by the agreement itself or by law. 1inally.ation or "nderta5in+' >ES. entitled to the fulfillment of the obligation prescribed therein. by right. --. The terms and conditions of a collecti e bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties. she can be employed in any occupation or undertaking allowable by law. such as the cost of li ing. training wo an re%ei&e' W!o will .College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR restore the unit he has dri en to the same clean condition when he took it out. 1a oring a male employee o er a female employee with respect to promotion."rs"ant to a %olle%ti&e bar+ainin+ a+ree ent %onstit"te %o .lian%e wit! a s"bse:"entl# iss"ed wa+e order' NO. ha ing entered into an agreement with its employees. /a! 7. &he should not be discriminated against in employment by reason of her age. 1anuar! .impro ement of the economic predicament of the laborers.7 days in cases of caesarian section deli ery. marital status and pregnancy.2. * collecti e bargaining agreement is a contractual obligation. Increments to the laborersM financial gratification. compliance with a collecti e bargaining agreement is mandated by the e#pressed policy to gi e protection to labor. Thus.. the law grant the employees the same or better terms and conditions of employment. said policy should be gi en paramount consideration. if they wanted their car wash payments (=ive 1 9a4i vs )%(C. 1994). 9age distortion presupposes an increase in the compensation of the lower ranks in an office hierarchy without a corresponding raise for higher-tiered employees in the same region of the country. *nd the fact that a person is recei ing more in one region does not necessarily mean that he or she is better off than a person recei ing less in another region. the amounts doled out were paid directly to the persons who washed the units. <ow "%! aternit# lea&e benefit will a .. Varying in each region of the country are controlling facts. (/e!caua!an Colle0e vs #rilon.lo#ees !oldin+ si ilar .arit# in wa+es between e . supply and demand of basic goods. study and scholarship grants solely on account of their se#es. 4oreo er. salary and fringe benefits. NO. including wage. they should be iewed in the light of the &tateMs a owed policy to protect labor. Do dis. *s such. 199*).lain.

. any person between 5. 76.lo#ee' The employer shall pro ide the followingH a. f. Aowe er.G. to determine the appropriate minimum age and other standards for retirement in special occupations for women. or similar establishment shall be considered as an employee of such establishment for purposes of labor and social legislation. W!at is a non*!a3ardo"s "nderta5in+' It refers to any kind of work or acti ity. 60. &uch re(uest must be due to illness medically certified to arise out of her pregnancy.ersons below 1@ #ears of a+e' 68 . to below 57 years of age -Labor Code0$ %. the first to be made upon receipt of maternity lea e application and the second not later than 8C-days after payment of the first installment. complete abortion or miscarriage which renders her unfit to work. W!at are t!e !a3ardo"s wor5 and a%ti&ities to . and 8C years of age -. facilities for women such as seats. The e#tended lea e benefit shall be a hindrance to reco er sickness benefit for the same period of GC days for the same childbirth. abortion or miscarriage. W!at ot!er stat"tor# benefits and ser&i%es s!all an e . the &&& will reimburse the employer after the contingency for the amount of maternity benefit legally ad anced to the employee. sub'ect to the e#ceptions specified by . 1ree family planning ser ices to employees and their spouses. cocktail lounge. bar. Can a aternit# lea&e benefit be e$tended be#ond t!e allowable 7ERIOD' >ES. namelyH a. 1le#ible work schedule to any solo parent as defined in . Those engaged in Child Labor. W!at is t!e ini " e .lo#er .lo#able a+e for #o"n+ wor5ers' Red Notes in Labor Law The minimum employable age for young workers is 57 years old.epublic *ct :o.epublic *ct :o. 2arental lea e of not more than se en days e ery year to the solo parent who has rendered at least one-year ser ice. years of age. The working youth who are between 5. e(ui alent to the same percentage as the benefit granted by &&&$ %.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS The employer ad ances the maternity lea e benefit to the (ualified employee in full or in two e(ual installments.epublic *ct :o. which is prohibited by law. <pon receipt of satisfactory proof of such payment. separate toilet rooms and nursery in the work place.+$ d. 3mployed minors who are from 5. Aoliday pay during the period that the woman employee is recei ing maternity or disability benefits. 66. bar. -B. safety and health. deli t!e wo an e . and 57 years of age may be employed in undertakings not ha"ardous or deleterious in nature. if the establishment regularly employ more than +CC workers$ b. 6(. W!at is t!e stat"s of a wo an .er itted or s"ffered to wor5 in an# ni+!t %l"b. massage clinic. 9orking children who are below 5.7$ d. W!o are %onsidered #o"n+ wor5ers and wor5in+ %!ildren' Ooung workers are in different categories. in which the employee is not e#posed to any risk that constitutes an imminent danger to his or her life and limb. LABOR LAW -@. 6-. a maternity lea e may be e#tended beyond GC days upon re(uest of the woman employee. 7CEE0$ b. 61. e. or ot!er si ilar establis! ent "nder t!e Labor Code' *ny woman who is permitted or suffered to work with or without compensation in any night club.

*n employer is prohibited by the Labor Code to discriminate against any young person with respect to terms and conditions of employment on account of his or her being a minor. 9ork under ground. or which in ol es manual handling or transport of hea y loads$ d.lo#ees Co . or work where the child is unreasonably confined to the premises of the employer. 68. 9hen the child works directly under the sole responsibility of his or her parents or guardians or legal guardian and where only members of the employer=s family are employed. 9ork which e#poses children to physical$ psychological or se#ual abuse$ b. safety.lo#s a #o"n+ . radio or tele ision is essential. e(uipment and tools. which ser ices are usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and en'oyment thereof. such as ministering to the personal comfort and en'oyment of the employer=s family. The &ocial &ecurity Law pro ides that co erage in the &&& is compulsory upon all employees not o er GC years of age. The employment does not endanger the child=s life. 6B. under water. to to#ic. e. is !e or s!e entitled to t!e sa e ter s and %onditions of e . Can a #o"n+ wor5er be a e ber of t!e So%ial Se%"rit# S#ste se%"rit# /SS2 and E . The employer parent or legal guardian pro ides the child with primary and Q or secondary education prescribed by the @epartment of 3ducation. e#plosi e.lo#ed or ade to wor5' * child below 5. The employment does not in ol e ad ertisement or commercials promoting alcoholic be erages.erson between 18 and 1@ #ears of a+e be allowed to en+a+e in do esti% ser&i%e' * minor.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR Aa"ardous work and acti ities to persons below 57 years age includeH a. 9here the child=s employment or participation in public entertainment or information through cinema. or in confined spaces$ %. On%e a fir &alidl# e . 9ork with ha"ardous machinery. 6@. on the following conditionsH a. 6). tobacco and its by-products or e#hibiting iolence$ b. &elf-employed young persons can also be &&& members.lo# ent a%%orded to an e . at dangerous heights or at unguarded heights of two meters and abo e. pro ided thatH a. corrosi e. poisonous. Can a .lo#ee of le+al a+e' >ES. The employment does not impair the child=s moral de elopment %. into#icating drinks. noise le els or ibrations damaging to their health. Culture and &ports -@3C&0. or to other dangerous chemicals including pharmaceuticals. may be employed as a domestic ser ant to render ser ice in and about the employer=s home. safety and health and morals$ b. San Beda Colle+e of 69. to temperatures. theater. +. no#ious. whether male or female. The employment does not endanger the child=s life. years old is :!T permitted to work in any public or pri ate establishment 3PC32T in these two situationsH 5. 9ork under particularly difficult conditions such as work for long hours or during the night.erson. This law defines an employee as any person who performs ser ices for an employer and who recei es compensation for such ser ices. health and morals$ d.ensation /EC2 benefits' /SSS2 and a&ail of t!e so%ial Law 69 >ES. Can a %!ild below 18 #ears of a+e be e . The employment does not interfere with his or her schooling. flammable and combustible substances or composites. where there is an employer-employee relationship. There is a written contract appro ed by the @!L3$ %. 9ork in an unhealthy en ironment which may e#pose children to ha"ardous processes. W!o are %onsidered %!ild laborers' . to harmful biological agents.

the emotional threshold of the employee (Philippine Aeolus Automotive <nited Corp vs )%(C. but by rules and regulations promulgated by the &ocial &ecurity Commission. >o" were as5ed b# a . The time to do so may ary depending upon the needs. in the settlement of claims. ar%!ite%ts and ot!er %onstr"%tion wor5ers. %o .an# for t!is . a %o .osed of en+ineers. &uch benefits cannot be considered as property earned by the member during his lifetime.onents.0.epublic *ct :o. ocational or technological institutions. Red Notes in Labor Law 68 8-. Aowe er. 1ul! +*. abo"t t!e . . April .184. male or female. were !ired b# t!e %o . 80. *ny employee. ' ( )o %. W!at ad&i%e wo"ld #o" +i&e' E$. ' ( )o 1. a+ed se&enteen /1)2.lain briefl#.erson.ossible e . b# law to #o"n+ and deser&in+ st"dents w!o want to wor5' . but not more than +. de%ided to !a&e t!eir b"ildin+ reno&ated.lo#er' NO. . 81.ert# earned b# t!e for . 1988).***). I will ad ise the paint manufacturing company that it cannot hire a person aged se enteen -5. The (ualified and deser ing youth can be employed during the summer and Qor Christmas acation as aid to the pursuit of their education. tertiary. legal and respects the child=s right to health and education is not child labor. 1urthermore. The &ecretary of Labor has classified paint manufacturing as ha"ardous work.lain. e ber d"rin+ !is lifeti e' Do t!e# The benefits recei able under the &&& law are in the nature of a special pri ilege or an arrangement secured by the law pursuant to the policy of the &tate to pro ide social security to the workingman. performing work or ser ice that is ha"ardous or deleterious in nature. . 8(. or that interferes with normal de en+a+ed in t!e asse blin+ of a"to oti&e %o . years of age is not considered child labor if it falls under allowable situations under .aint an"fa%t"rin+ %o . Ais contributions to the fund. The gra amen of the offense in se#ual harassment is not the iolation of the employee=s se#uality but the abuse of power by the employer. they shall pay the students only GC/ of the basic wage and the remaining EC/ in the form of educational ouchers payable by the go ernment. *n employer. *rt.8+8 pro ides for employment assistance to students who are at least 5. or unsuper ised by the child=s parent or guardian. w!o s!all be dire%tl# "nder t!e %are of t!e se%tion s". Does t!e dela# on t!e . it may be noted. &trictly speaking there is not time period within which he or she is e#pected to complain through the proper channels. W!at are t!e benefits .7. *nd it is not the probate or regular court but the Commission that determines the persons to whom the benefits are payable (Social Securit! S!stem vs constitute only an insignificant portion of t!e &i%ti of se$"al !arass ent to %o . Light work that is occasional. can be a national or local go ernment office or a pri ate establishment or of !is estate' E$. Are SSS benefits %onsidered . years of age enrolled or intending to be enrolled in any secondary.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS LABOR LAW Child laborers are persons aged below 1 . not all children who work are engaged in child labor.lain said a%t i . 9ork performed by any person below 5. the procedure to be obser ed is go erned not by the general pro isions of law. *s incenti es for employers. the benefits are specifically declared not transferable and e#empt from ta# legal processes and liens. and more importantly. or e#ploitati e.epublic *ct :o. 86.air !is %a"se of a%tion a+ainst !isL!er e .. may rightfully cry foul pro ided the claim is well substantiated. under this law. 4ift# /802 .. 586 -c0 of the Labor Code pro ides that a person below eighteen -570 years of age shall not be allowed to work in an undertaking which is ha"ardous or deleterious in nature as determined by the &ecretary of Labor. or depri es that child=s right to health and education. T!e owners of 4ALCON 4a%tor#. or from 1 to below 1! ent as a i$er of a .8.G.

lo#ees. They are therefore e#cepted from the compulsory co erage of the &&& law. wit! alle+ed a"t!orit# to !ire and fire e ."r. 89.lain. w!o !a&e been desi+nated as Se%tion . Do labor arbiters !a&e D"risdi%tion o&er ille+al dis issal %ases t!at .* 55G5. Lmanagerial employeesL therefore fall in two -+0 categories. what is in ol ed in an illegal dismissal case is the relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employeeKa purely secular matter not related to the practice of faith. 8). In <nited 2epsi-Cola &uper isory <nion -<2&<0 . April 1. @esignation should be reconciled with the actual 'ob description of the employee. 1alcon 1actory is a company engaged in the assembling of automoti e components. as amended. &imply stated. were %on&erted to ana+erial e .er&isors. The fifty -.K Is 7ICO7Cs %ontention tenable' NO. and the Lsuper isorsL composed of 1irst-Line 4anagers. the LmanagersL per se composed of Top and 4iddle 4anagers. Is t!eir %ontention %orre%t' onl# for t!e .. <nder &ection 7 -'0 of .ana+ers.L 4anagerial employees are ranked as Top 4anagers.leted in t!ree /-2 #ears. LABOR RELATIONS 88.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR . architects and construction workers0 were hired by 1alcon 1actory to reno ate its building. The fact that a case in ol es the church and its religious minister does not ipso facto gi e the case a religious significance. <nder this distinction.enal . must fail and the same should be as it is hereby onl# after t!e . namely.riests and inisters' a# be filed a+ainst Law 69 San Beda Colle+e of >ES.C0 people is not in connection with the purpose of the business of the factory. employment of purely casual employees.lo#ees."ted a+ainst it for i . *n employment is purely casual if it is not for the purpose of occupation or business of the employer.le ented in 1BB1. Thus. Do Labor Arbiters or t!e NLRC !a&e D"risdi%tion o&er %ri inal %ases in&ol&in+ &iolations of t!e .ose of Kt!wartin+ t!e ri+!t of t!e %on%erned e .C0 persons -engineers. . Laguesma. the employment of these fifty -.C0 persons is purely casual. we had occasion to elucidate on the term Lmanagerial employees.etition for %ertifi%ation ele%tion was filed inas "%! as t!e sa e is a &alid e$er%ise of its ana+e ent .t"ali3ed t!e de%entrali3ation . The petition not being meritorious. implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of 1irst-Line 4anagers is simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rank-and. 4iddle 4anagers and 1irst Line 4anagers. t!e# are ineli+ible for "nion e bers!i."r. ' ( )o 1*17+8.. 1999). "nder Arti%le (68 of t!e Labor Code. Aence. In the problem gi en. not for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer are e#cepted from compulsory co erage.ositions Se%tion <eads and S". The work to be performed by these fifty -.lo#ees to self* or+ani3ation. Au0ust 18. or doctrines of the church (Austria vs )%(C. 4"rt!er ore. 7ICO7 e . and t!at said .leted after ore t!an one /12 Top and 4iddle 4anagers ha e the authority to de ise. for it is the 'ob description that determines the nature of employment (PIC$P vs %a0uesma.le entin+ its de%entrali3ation .ose. 7ICO7 %ontends t!at no ali%e s!o"ld be i .ro+ra it i . the mere fact that an employee is designated managerL does not ipso facto make him one.ana+ers and Unit . as t!e %ase a# !as lon+ been in t!e drawin+ boards of t!e %o .!ati%all# stresses t!at it %o"ld not !a&e %on%e.lo#ees %ontended t!at sin%e t!e wor5 wo"ld be %o .file employees of an organi"ation. . w!i%! was reali3ed onl# in 1B@B and f"ll# i .rero+ati&e. t!e# s!o"ld be s"bDe%t to %o .ro&isions of labor laws' E$.***). ' ( )o 1. 7ICO7Js ain t!esis is t!at t!e ."lsor# %o&era+e "nder t!e So%ial Se%"rit# Law. worship. T!e e . Bein+ ana+erial e .4+8.le ented in 1B@B. T!e wor5 is esti ated to be %o .lo#ees "nder t!e de%entrali3ation and reor+ani3ation .

T. E$. that the 2hilippine court has or is likely to ha e power to enforce its decision. that the 2hilippine court is one to which the parties may con eniently resort to$ b. a party to a labor case is estopped from raising the issue of 'urisdiction of the labor arbiter when he has participated in the proceedings from start to finish. <nder this principle. Likewise. &ettlement of @isputes. and committee members.. The 2alace hotel is a corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was not e en ser ed with summons. ' (r )o 141*9+. $cto..a# t!is do%trine be in&o5ed a+ainst t!e e$er%ise of D"risdi%tion b# t!e labor arbiter' <nder the rule of forum non conveniens. the 2alace Aotel.elG a. 2.lo# ent of COO7ERATIME e . the principle of Durisdiction by 3stoppel applies to labor cases as was held by the &upreme Court in the case of Prudential ?an@ and 9rust Compan! vs (e!es. In this case the petitioner bank acti ely participated in the proceedings before the Labor *rbiter. directors.1498. K @isputes among members.C and Court of *ppeals.!VI@3@H a.C was a seriously incon enient forum on the following groundsH a.C are not in ested with the 'udicial power$ they merely e#ercise (uasi-'udicial functions. .C is an incon enient forum gi en that all the incidents of the case.le of F="risdi%tion b# Esto. .l# in labor %ases' >ES. The incon enience is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants I the 2alace Aotel and 4AICL I are not nationals of the 2hilippines. The :L. In the case of Perpetual -elp Credit Coop Inc vs =a. officers. %. to employment."tes in&ol&in+ t!e wa+es and ter s and %onditions of e .urada. such would not ha e any binding effect against the employer. :either can an intelligent decision be made as to the law go erning the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. It was only when the Court of *ppeals made an ad erse decision did it raise the issue of 'urisdiction. The regular courts ha e 'urisdiction o er criminal cases in ol ing iolations of the labor laws. that the 2hilippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts$ and %.rin%i.lain t!e do%trine of "orum non. they do not adhere strictly to the technical rules of e idence.lo#ees' E$. . b. the main witnesses are non-residents of the 2hilippines. 5+5. Does t!e Labor Arbiter !a&e D"risdi%tion o&er dis. . >ES. 9hile it is true that 'urisdiction o er the sub'ect matter of a case may be raised at any time of the proceedings. as far as practicable. and intra-cooperati e disputes shall. a 2hilippine court or agency 4*O assume 'urisdiction o er the case if it chooses to do so.conveniens. 8@.from the time of recruitment. 90.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Labor *rbiters or the :L. :either are they doing business in the 2hilippines. ' ( )o 1. This doctrine may be in oked against the e#ercise of 'urisdiction of the labor arbiters as held in the case of /anila -otel Corporation and /anila -otel International limited vs )%(C and /arcelo Santos which ruled that the :L.*.**1. Does t!e . In the hearing and disposition of cases brought before them. The &upreme Court held that it was already too late to raise the issue of 'urisdiction as the petitioner was already in estoppel. =e.**1 it was clarified thatH *. 3 en assuming that the proper decision could be reached by the :L. be settled amicably in accordance with the conciliation or mediation mechanisms embodied in LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . :L. 8. This calls for the application of the principle of le" loci contractus -the law of the place where the contract was made0. This is re(uired in criminal cases where the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt. hence 'urisdictions o er its person was not ac(uired. this rule presupposes that laches or estoppel has not super ened. and to dismissal occurred outside the 2hilippines.

particularly where K as in the present case K the surrounding circumstances point to a fraudulent claim. the disputed contract of sale here is not merely rescissible$ it is simulated or fictitious and. The issuance of an e" parte T. :o. K <pon re(uest of either or both parties. hence. bereft of an ade(uate remedy at law (?isi0 n0 /an00a0a7a sa Concrete A00re0ates. .C in the amount e(ui alent to the monetary award in the 'udgment appealed from.ed erel# be%a"se of a t!ird .*. 9-. a certificate of non-resolution shall be issued by the Commission prior to the filing of appropriate action before the proper courts.."te be iss"ed e4 parte' >ES. &hould such a conciliationQmediation proceeding fail..**. Inc vs )%(C.! in a labor dispute is not per se prohibited.a# a te .ost a %as! or s"ret# bond as an indis. 7 4ediation and Conciliation.erfe%tion of an a.egional !ffice or the Bureau denying the application for registration shall be in writing.orar# restrainin+ order in a labor for re+istration for a %onsiderable a o"nt of ti e' &ecure a notice of denial in order to a ail of the remedy of appeal. . Thus. Thus. G686 -Cooperati e @e elopment *uthority Law0 which readsH &3C. &uch decision could be in the form of a monetary award in fa or of an employee. <nder *rt. +5. as when the commission of unlawful acts is causing substantial irreparable in'ury to company properties and the company is. To ensure that an appealed monetary award is affirmed and has become final and e#ecutory. the dispute is about payment of wages. 91. 199+). 9(.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR the by-laws of the cooperati e. the decision of the .art# %lai ' NO. howe er should be characteri"ed by care and caution for the law re(uires that it be clearly 'ustified by considerations of e#treme necessity. stating in clear terms the reasons for such a denial. officers and directors of the cooperati e in ol ed in disputes within a cooperati e or between cooperati es. ' ( )o 14**89.a# an e$e%"tion be sto. There is no e idence that pri ate respondents are members of petitioner 2ACCI and e en if they are. the *uthority shall mediate and conciliate disputes within a cooperati e or between cooperati esH 2ro ided. The Labor Code grants the :ational Labor . Its issuance.C0 sufficient authority and power to e#ecute final 'udgments and awards..elations Commission -:L. of the Labor Code. oid ab initio (9anon0on v Samson. /a! 9. these disputes are within the original and e#clusi e 'urisdiction of the Labor *rbiter. an appeal will mean that a monetary award will not be e#ecuted. the matter shall be settled in a court of competent 'urisdiction. *fter all. he must post a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the :L. .eal' *n appeal stays the e#ecution of an award. That if no mediation or conciliation succeeds within three -80 months from re(uest thereof. *rt..L Complementing this *rticle is &ection 7 of . * copy of the notice of denial should be furnished to the applicant union. W!at is t!e re ed# in %ase t!e Re+ional Offi%e or BLR &erball# denies or ref"ses to a%t on an a.). and in applicable laws.ensable %ondition for t!e . a third-party claim of ownership on a le ied property should not necessarily pre ent e#ecution.lo#er to . In fact. In %ases in&ol&in+ onetar# award. Septem. rest day and termination of 18. ++8 re(uires that as an indispensable condition for the perfection of an appeal by an employer. w!# does t!e law re:"ire an e . o ertime pay. 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . 96. The abo e pro isions apply to members. for the moment.

2. This is especially true in the present case where the petitioning <nion is already the bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees in the establishment.rise' >ES. The filing or pendency of any interQintra-union dispute and other related labor relations dispute is not a pre'udicial (uestion to any petition for certification election and shall not be a ground for the dismissal of petition for certification election or suspension of proceedings for certification election (Sections + and 4. the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the <nion in iew of e ident conflict of interests. In ?ulletin liti+ants' 5 The rights. relationships and obligations of the parties-litigants against each other and other parties-in-interest shall be go erned by the decision so ordered. 'oin. assist or 'oin a labor union e(ually applies to them. W!at is t!e effe%t of t!e filin+L. 199. I(( . &mplo!er encoura0ement and assistance 68 c . of t!e . (Philips vs )%( do ination of a labor "nion ade anifest' Red Notes in Labor Law a Initiation o" the compan! union idea.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 98. relationships and obligations of the parties-litigants against each other and other parties-in-interest prior to the institution of the petition shall continue to remain during the pendency of the petition and until the date of finality of the decision rendered therein. and at least one legitimate labor organi"ation per bargaining unit.144 SC(A 8. (<%& XI ?oo@ E. There can be se eral bargaining units in one employer unit. 9@. To allow confidential employees to 'oin the e#isting <nion of the rank-and file would be in iolation of the terms of the Collecti e Bargaining *greement wherein this kind of employees by the nature of their functionsQpositions are e#pressly e#cluded. if the managerial employees would belong to. *lso. *s such. which may occur in three stylesH -50 !utright formation by the employer or his representati eR -+0 3mployee formation or outright demand or influence of the employer -80 4anagerially moti ated formation by employees. they assist and act in a confidential capacity to. ' ( )o 88927."tes to t!e relations!i. Can t!ere be se&eral "nions in one enter. 9). may become the source of undue ad antage.lishin0 Co .enden%# of interLintra "nion and ot!er related labor dis. radio and telegraph operators. Inc vs -on Au0usta SancheF. the rationale for the ineligibility of managerial employees to form. assist. 1une .8 C1988D the Court elaborated on the rationale for such inhibition in that.lo#ees Doin. . &aid employee-s0 may act as a spy -ies0 of either party to a collecti e bargaining agreement. The <nion can also become company-dominated with the presence of managerial employees in <nion membership. there can be se eral unions within one bargaining unit. Thereafter. or by oluntary recognition as the case may be.). or be affiliated with a <nion. or assist unions if they assist in a confidential capacity or ha e access to the confidential matters of persons who e#ercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations By the ery nature of their functions.L This also holds true for confidential employees such as accounting personnel. In w!at for s is %o . or for a labor "nion' LABOR LAW NO. or ha e access to confidential matters of. persons who e#ercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. But there can only be one bargaining agent >to the e#clusion of others? which shall be designated either by certification or consent election.**+) 99. Can all ran5 and file e . =inancial support to the union *n employer commits unfair labor practice if he defrays the union e#penses or pays the fees of the attorney who drafted the union=s constitution and by-laws. who ha ing access to confidential information. since there is no law precluding such a situation. Confidential employees who are *L&! rank and file employees cannot form. the rights.

there would be no restrictions which could 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of ..lo#ees Asso%iation /I>NEA2 and ref"sed to do an# f"rt!er ne+otiations and bar+ainin+.ruar! .**. a le+iti ate labor or+ani3ation wit!in I>N Co be#ond t!e 90*da# freedo . e"cept of those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. d Supervisor! assistance This takes the form of soliciting membership.***). I>N Co.7+74.ra%ti%e on t!e .ers. a lo%alL%! of I>N Co. If the local union=s mo e to disaffiliate is supported by almost all >ma'ority? the members of said union.***).ter of > 4ederation o&ed to disaffiliate fro t!e 18.' Oes. where a labor union and an employer ha e agreed on a closed shop. 1anuar! +1.. E . permitting union acti ities during working time or coercing employees to 'oin the union by threats of dismissal or demotion (Philippine American Ci0ar G Ci0arette =actor! >or@erHs <nion vs Philippine American Ci0ar G Ci0arette /"0 Co Inc . ' ( )o 1*9**. in t!e CBA' E$. entered into a %olle%ti&e bar+ainin+ a+ree ent wit! Union I. as 2&3* has alidly se ered itself from 2*1L<. Septem. recogni"es the alidity of a union shop agreement in *rticle +E7 thereof. )1.etition for %ertifi%ation ele%tion !as been filed b# ABC Union. there is no legitimate representation issue and the filing of said petition do not constitute a bar to an on-going negotiation (Cole0io de San 1uan de %etran v Association o" &mplo!ees and =acult! o" %etran. 9hen a petition is filed !<T&I@3 the GC-day freedom period. and the employees must continue to be members of the union for the duration of the contract in order to keep their 'obs (#%S< vs %a0uesma. *s held in the case of Philippine S@!landers vs )%(C.ended t!e on*+oin+ ne+otiations for a new CBA wit! I>N Co.. Was t!ere "nfair labor .18+84 =e. "nilaterall# s"s. 9e affirm the ruling of the oluntary arbitrator for the inclusion of a union shop pro ision in addition to the e#isting maintenance of membership clause in the collecti e bargaining agreement.eriod +ranted to t!e for er. B# &irt"e of said infor ation. The legal protection granted to such right to refrain from 'oining is withdrawn by operation of law. The duty to bargain collecti ely includes the mutual obligation to meet and con ene promptly and e#peditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. the <ni ersityMs reliance on the case of )ictoriano vs% *li$alde Rope +or. In that case. ' ( )o 1. T!e o&e was s". April . ..8.enden%# of t!e disaffiliation . the company=s act of entering into a CB* with the local union does not constitute <L2. > federation filed an a%tion for UL7 a+ainst t!e %o . The Labor Code. was infor ed t!at a . we ruled that L.. t!e %o .lain.the right to 'oin a union includes the right to abstain from 'oining any .orted b# al ost all of its e bers. ' ( )o 14147. by irtue of which the employer may employ only members of the collecti e bargaining union. and such fact is not disputed by the federation >mother union?. to witH #to discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organi$ation% &othing in this 'ode or in any other law shall prevent the parties from re(uiring membership in a recogni$ed collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment. W!at is t!e le+al D"stifi%ation of a UNION S<O7 . &ection -e0 pro ides. )0. there must be a alid petition for Certification 3lection raising a legitimate representation issue. D"rin+ t!e . howe er. De%ide.. *s the &olicitor Beneral asserted in his consolidated Comment.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR Immediately granting the union e#clusi e recognition as a bargaining agent without determining whether the union represents the ma'ority of employees is an illegal form of assistance amounting to unfair labor practice. as amended. The right to refrain from 'oining labor organi"ations recogni"ed by &ection 8 of the Industrial 2eace *ct is. Union I.nion is clearly misplaced. 9B. ' ( )o %. 198+). In order to allow the employer to alidly suspend the bargaining process. I>N Co.

)-. 9e also deem it sufficient for pri ate respondent :33C! I to pay each indi idual petitioner 2.a# an ele%tri% %oo. managed. W!at is t!e so*%alled <OLDOMER 7RINCI7LE in a CBA' Red Notes in Labor Law 68 In the case of )e7 Paci"ic 9im. the damages awarded by the labor arbiter. )8. managing. to our mind.a# da a+es for t!e UL7 it !as %o a+ainst its e . )6. a CB* that does not substantially impro e the employees= wages and benefits. based on the pro isions of *rticles +++6 and ++8+ of the Ci il Code ()&&C$ I v )%(C. social and financial position of the offended parties and the business and financial position of the offender are taken into account. *pplying the principle of vs )%(C.8 and +.4.CC to answer for e#emplary damages. which is deemed incorporated in all CB*=s pro ides the reason why the new CB* can only be gi en a prospecti e effect.8-* mandate the parties to keep the status (uo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the e#isting agreement during the GC-day period prior to the e#piration of the old CBA* andQor until a new agreement is reached by the parties.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS alidly hinder it from subse(uently affiliating with :C9 and entering into a CB* in behalf of its members. It is prohibited by law. and controlling it. <nder *rticle +86 -f0. the automatic renewal clause pro ided by the law. the former which has chosen to disaffiliate from the latter as willed by ma'ority of its members may alidly enter into a CB* with the employer without holding the employer liable for <L2. we deem it proper to reduce moral damages to only 25C. 3ither e(ually or proportionally. we find it proper in this case to impose moral and e#emplary damages on pri ate respondent. they are distributed among members in correlation with the resources of the association utili"ed.CCC. . 1anuar! .. Conse(uently. Cooperati es help promote economic democracy and support community de elopment.lo#ees' <ow "%!' itted LABOR LAW >ES. or controlled by the principal and operates solely for the principal owning. To e#clude them would constitute undue discrimination and depri e them of monetary benefits they would otherwise be entitled to under a new collecti e bargaining contract to which they would ha e been parties.CCC. the court had the occasion to rule that *rticle +. The economic benefits filter to the cooperati e members. . we are cogni"ant that a cooperati e promotes the welfare of its own members. the resulting Collecti e Bargaining *greement -CB*0 will most likely be a sweetheart contract. employees hired after the stipulated term of a CB* are entitled to the benefits pro ided thereunder.***). It is our iew that herein pri ate respondents had not fully acted in good faith. . <nder these circumstances. W!at is a sweet!eart %ontra%t' *rticle +E6 considers it an unfair labor practice for a labor organi"ation to ask for or accept negotiation of attorney=s fees from the employer in settling a bargaining issue or a dispute. 9hen it happens. one of the grounds for cancellation of union registration is entering into collecti e bargaining agreements which pro ide terms and conditions of employment below minimum standards established by law. but the amount should be tempered. the local union being the agent of the real principal Kthe union members$ and the federation being merely the agent of the agent K the local union. ' ( )o 118*88. )(.CC payable by pri ate respondent :33C! I to each indi idual petitioner. are e#cessi e. Aowe er. Aowe er. W!at is OanP in*!o"se a+en%#' *n in-house agency is where a contractor or subcontractor is engaged in the supply of labor which is owned. the business. 1or this reason.erati&e be !eld liable to . In determining the amount of damages reco erable. Thus.

lain. By agreeing to a 5C-year suspension. !ne is to promote industrial stability and . which e#pires on &eptember 8C. @espite the silence of the law. the Court rules herein that CB* arbitral awards granted after si# months from the e#piration of the last CB* shall retroact to such time agreed upon by both employer and the employees or their union. 2*L3*.7298. The financial capability of a company cannot be based on its proposed budget because a proposed budget does not reflect the true financial condition of a company. but pre enting the latter=s closure.8-* of the Labor Code. 2etitioners submit that a 5C-year CB* suspension is inordinately long. . on t!e ot!er' E$.. on CBA bar+ainin+ on Law 69 The assailed 2*L-2*L3* agreement was the result of oluntary collecti e bargaining negotiations undertaken in the light of the se ere financial situation faced by the employer. (. in effect.8-* has a two-fold purpose. and more importantly. way beyond the ma#imum statutory life of a CB*. .**. W!at is t!e %ontrollin+ do%trine on t!e iss"e of RETROACTIMIT> of CBA benefits' E$. abdicated the workers= constitutional right to bargain for another CB* at the mandated time. !n the other hand. 9e find no conflict between said agreement and *rticle +. 2etitioners claim that the agreement was not meant merely to suspend the e#isting 2*L-2*L3* CB*.+. but also to foreclose any renegotiation or any possibility to forge a new CB* for a decade or up to +CC7.lain. )). while the other pro isions. *bsent such an agreement as to retroacti ity.ruar! . the use of a proposed budget as proof of a companyMs financial condition would be susceptible to abuse by scheming employers who might be merely feigning dire financial condition in their business entures in order to a oid granting salary increases and fringe benefits to their employees.osed b"d+et or an a"dited finan%ial state ent. e#cept for representation."r. )B. a CB* has a term of fi e years.lain. the law is silent as to the retroacti ity of a CB* arbitral award or that granted not by irtue of the mutual agreement of the parties but by inter ention of the go ernment. *rticle +.a# t!e Labor Unions and t!e Co . In general. the effecti ity depends on the agreement of the parties. pro ided for in *rticle +. a CB* negotiated within si# months after the e#piration of the e#isting CB* retroacts to the day immediately following such date and if agreed thereafter. In the absence of a CB*. a . W!i%! is t!e better baro eter of t!e tr"e finan%ial standin+ of a %o . (8-*A of t!e Labor Code. may be negotiated not later than three years after the e#ecution. E$.lain. . It iolates the %protection to labor) policy laid down by the Constitution. +CCC. 9e find the argument de oid of merit ((ivera v &spiritu.L 1inancial statements audited by independent e#ternal auditors constitute the normal method of proof of profit and loss performance of a company. <nder *rticle +. *s we ruled in the case of Calte4 (e"iner! &mplo!ees Association (C(&A) vs 1ose S ?rillantes. 1anuar! . petitioners contend that the contro erted 2*L-2*L3* agreement is oid because it abrogated the right of workers to self-organi"ation and their right to collecti e bargaining.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR )9.a# t!e Se%retar# of Labor order t!e retroa%ti&it# of a CBA' Labor laws are silent as to when an arbitral award in a labor dispute where the &ecretary had assumed 'urisdiction by irtue of *rticle +G8 -g0 of the Labor Code shall retroact.8-* of the Labor Code insofar as representation is concerned. . ' ( )o***). ) for .18. =e. 1997) >w?e belie e that the standard proof of a companyMs financial standing is its financial statements duly audited by independent and credible e#ternal auditors. ' ( )o enter into a CBA t!at +rants a oratori" of ten #ears in %olle%ti&e bar+ainin+' Is t!is not a no&ation of t!e "nionCs ri+!t to %olle%ti&e bar+ainin+' E$.8-*. unlike audited financial statements.. and Art. the &ecretaryMs determination of the date of retroacti ity as part of his discretionary powers o er arbitral awards shall control (/&(A%C$ v Iuisum.).in0. San Beda Colle+e of !n the second issue. with the peculiar and uni(ue intention of not merely promoting industrial peace at 2*L.oses of resol&in+ an e%ono i% deadlo%5 in %olle%ti&e bar+ainin+. Is t!ere a %onfli%t between a CBA t!at +rants a 10*#ear oratori" one !and.79 SC(A . the award shall retroact to the first day after the si#-month period following the e#piration of the last day of the CB* should there be one.

predictability. Inasmuch as the agreement sought to promote industrial peace at 2*L during its rehabilitation, said agreement satisfies the first purpose of *rticle +.8-*. The other is to assign specific timetables wherein negotiations become a matter of right and re(uirement. :othing in *rticle +.8-* prohibits the parties from wai ing or suspending the mandatory timetables and agreeing on the remedies to enforce the same. In the instant case, it was 2*L3*, as the e#clusi e bargaining agent of 2*L=s ground employees that oluntarily entered into the CB* with 2*L. It was also 2*L3* that oluntarily opted for the 5C-year suspension of the CB*. 3ither case was the union=s e#ercise of its right to collecti e bargaining. The right to free collecti e bargaining, after all, includes the right to suspend it ((ivera v &spiritu, ' ( )o 1+2247, 1anuar! ,+, ,**,). @0. Distin+"is! andLor e$,lain t!e followin+ ter s? /12 Dire%t Certifi%ationQ /(2 Certifi%ation Ele%tionQ and /-2 Consent Ele%tion. 4ed-*rbiter certifies that a certain <nion is the e#clusi e collecti e bargaining representati e of the employees of an appropriate bargaining unit without holding of a certification election, but merely on the basis of e idence presented in support of the <nion=s claim that it is the choice of the ma'ority of the employees. &uch e idence may consist of affida its made by a clear ma'ority of the employees stating that they are members of and are supporting the <nion petitioning for direct certification to be their e#clusi e collecti e bargaining representation -2rohibited by law under 3.!. 5550 * certification election is an election ordered by 4ed-*rbiter for the purpose of determining the sole and e#clusi e bargaining agent of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. * consent election is an election agreed upon by the parties to determine the issue of ma'ority representation of all workers of an appropriate collecti e bargaining unit not for the purposes of determining the sole and e#clusi e bargaining agent of the employees of the bargaining unit but only for the purpose of administering the e#isting CB* in case of massi e disaffiliation of union members.


Dire%t Certifi%ation

Certifi%ation Ele%tion Consent Ele%tion

@1. Can t!e B"rea" of Labor Relations %ertif# a "nion as t!e e$%l"si&e bar+ainin+ re,resentati&e after s!owin+ ,roof of aDorit# re,resentation t!ro"+! "nion e bers!i, %ards wit!o"t %ond"%tin+ an ele%tion' NO. The Bureau of Labor ;elations cannot certify a union as the e#clusi e collecti e bargaining representati e after a showing of proof of ma'ority representation through union membership cards without conducting a certification election. The Labor Code -in *rts. +.G and +.70 pro ides only for a certification election as the mode for determining e#clusi e collecti e bargaining representati e if there is a (uestion on representation in an appropriate bargaining unit. @(. W!en is %onsent ele%tion a bar to a ,etition for %ertifi%ation ele%tion' W!en is it not a bar' 9here a petition for certification election had been filed and upon the intercession of the med-arbiter, the parties agree to hold a consent election, the result thereof shall constitute a bar to the holding of a certification election for one year from the holding of such consent election. Aowe er, where the total number of alid otes cast in a consent election is less than the ma'ority of all the eligible employees in the bargaining unit, there shall be a failure of election. &uch failure will not bar the filing of a petition for the immediate holding of a certification election. 9here no petition for certification election had been filed but the parties themsel es ha e agreed to hold a consent election, the result thereof shall not constitute a bar to another certification election, unless the winning union had been e#tended oluntary recognition. @-. Union I. a le+iti ate labor or+ani3ation filed a ,etition for %ertifi%ation ele%tion d"rin+ t!e freedo ,eriod. Union >. anot!er "nion in t!e sa e %o ,an#. o&ed to dis iss t!e sa e

Red Notes in Labor Law

College of Law LAW

San Beda LABOR

alle+in+ a on+ ot!ers t!at Union I is %o ,osed of not onl# ran5 and file e ,lo#ees. b"t also of s",er&isor# e ,lo#ees. w!o "nder t!e law. a# not Doin a labor or+ani3ation %o ,osed of ran5 and file e ,lo#ees. W!at is t!e effe%t of s"%! alle+ation ",on t!e ,etition for %ertifi%ation ele%tion' There is no effect. *fter a certificate of registration is issued to a union, its legal personality cannot be sub'ect to a collateral attack. It may be (uestioned only in an independent petition for cancellation in accordance with &ection . of ;ule V, Book IV of the Implementing ;ules of the Labor Code -9a0a!ta! -i0hlands International 'old Clu., Inc vs 9a0a!ta! -i0hlands &mplo!ees <nion;P9'>$ '( )o 14,*** 1anuar! ,,, ,**+). Aa ing attained such status, the petition of the union stands unless the registration of the union is cancelled in accordance with the aforementioned rule. The infirmity in the membership of the respondent union can be remedied in the %preelection conference) thru the e#clusion-inclusion proceedings. 1urthermore, the status of being a super isory employee does not by itself dis(ualify an employee from 'oining a labor organi"ation composed of rank and file employee. * super isory employee to be dis(ualified must possess the powers similar to that of a managerial employee such as the complete discretion to decide on matters without being under the control of or sub'ect to the re iew of some other superior. @6. ;a# an e ,lo#ee w!o was i ,ro,erl# laid off be entitled to &ote in a %ertifi%ation ele%tion' >ES. The employees who ha e been improperly laid off but who ha e a present, unabandoned right to an e#pectation of reemployment, are eligible to ote in certification election. Thus, if the dismissal is under (uestion, whereby a case of illegal dismissal andQ or <L2 was filed, the employees could and should still (ualify to ote. (Phil =ruits G Ee0eta.les Industries, Inc vs 9orres) @8. Does a de%ision in a %ertifi%ation ele%tion %ase re+ardin+ t!e e$isten%e of an e ,lo#er* e ,lo#ee relations!i, fore%lose all f"rt!er dis,"tes between t!e ,arties as to t!e e$isten%e or non*e$isten%e of s"%! relations!i,' NO. Aowe er final it may become, the decision in a certification election case, by the ery nature of such proceeding, is not such as to foreclose all further dispute as to the e#istence, or non-e#istence of an employer-employee relationship. It is established doctrine that for res adjudicata to apply, the following re(uisites must concurH -50 the former 'udgment or order must be final$ -+0 the court which rendered said 'udgment or order must ha e 'urisdiction o er the sub'ect matter and the parties$ -80 said 'udgment or order must be on the merits$ and -E0 there must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, sub'ect matter and cause of action. Clearly, implicit in these re(uisites is that the action or proceedings in which is issued the %prior Dudgment) that would operate in bar of a subse(uent action between the same parties for the same cause, be ad ersarial, or contentious, as distinguished from an e" parte hearing or proceeding of which the party seeking relief has gi en legal notice to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it, and a certification case is not such a proceeding. %* certification proceeding is not a Slitigation= in the sense in which this term is commonly understood, but a mere in estigation of a non-ad ersary, fact-finding character, in which the in estigating agency plays the part of a disinterested in estigator seeking merely to ascertain the desires of the employees as to the matter of their representation. The court en'oys a wide discretion in determining the procedure necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representati es by the employees (Sandoval Ship!ards vs Prisco Pepito, ' ( )o 14+4,8, 1une ,2, ,**1).) @9. W!at is t!e stat"tor# ,oli%# on %ertifi%ation ele%tions' <ow does t!e law treat ana+e entCs atte ,ts to t!wart initiati&es to !old %ertifi%ation ele%tion'



San Beda Colle+e of

The fact that 2IC!2 oiced out its ob'ection to the holding of certification election, despite numerous opportunities to entilate the same, only after respondent <ndersecretary of Labor affirmed the holding thereof, simply bolstered the public respondentsM conclusion that 2IC!2 raised the issue merely to pre ent and thwart the concerned section heads and super isory employees from e#ercising a right granted them by law. :eedless to stress, no obstacle must be placed to the holding of certification elections, for it is a statutory policy that should not be circum ented (PIC$P vs %a0uesma, ' ( )o 1*17+8, April 1,, ,***). @). W!at is t!e Do%trine of Union ;ono,ol#' It means that once a union is chosen as the collecti e bargaining agent of an appropriate bargaining unit through Certification election, it alone, can collecti ely bargain with management to the e#clusion of other competing unions. @@. Is t!ere a &iolation of t!e CBACs Fno stri5e no lo%5o"tG ,ro&ision w!en wor5ers Doin a de onstration a+ainst ,oli%e ab"ses' NO. The demonstration held by workers would be purely and completely an e#ercise of their freedom of e#pression in general and of their right of assembly and of petition for redress of grie ances in particular before the appropriate go ernment agency. To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer as e idence of bad faith in collecti e bargaining stretches unduly the compass of the collecti e bargaining agreement (Phil ?loomin0 /ills &mplo!ees $r0 vs Phil ?loomin0 /ills Co , Inc 1une 2, 197+). @B. W!at is a "nion re%o+nition stri5e' * union recognition strike is calculated to compel the employer to recogni"e one=s union and not the other contending group, as the employees= bargaining representati e despite the striking union=s doubtful ma'ority status to merit oluntary recognition and lack of formal certification as the e#clusi e representati e in the bargaining unit. B0. Is t!e pari delicto r"le a,,li%able in stri5es and lo%5o"ts' >ES. 9hen the parties are in pari delicto I the employees ha ing staged an illegal strike and the employer ha ing declared an illegal lockout I such situation warrants the restoration of the status (uo ante and bringing back the parties to their respecti e positions before the illegal strike and illegal lockout through the reinstatement, without backwages, of the dismissed employees. (Philippine Inter;=ashion, Inc vs )%(C, ' ( )o 29847, $ 18, 198,). B1. Wo"ld t!e UnionCs fail"re to s"b it t!e STRIAE MOTE RESULTS to t!e NC;B %a"se t!e ille+alit# of t!e stri5e' E$,lain. >ES. The &upreme Court said so in the case of Samahan n0 /an00a0a7a sa /olde4 v )%(C, ' ( )o 119487, =e.ruar! 1, ,***. It has been shown that the results of the strike- ote were ne er forwarded to the :C4B, as admitted by petitioners themsel es and as attested to by a Certification of :on-&ubmission of &trike Vote issued by the :C4B. There is thus no need for additional e idence on the matter, as it would not change the fact that the results of the strikeote were not submitted to the :C4B. 9ithout the submission of the results of the strike- ote, the strike was illegal, pursuant to *rticle +GE of the Labor Code B(. W!at is t!e le+al i ,li%ation of def#in+ t!e RETURN TO WORA ORDER in a stri5e %ase w!i%! is "nder ass" ,tion of D"risdi%tion' In the case of 9ele"un@en Semiconductors &mplo!ees <nion ==> v CA, ' ( )o 14+*1+;14, 18, ,***. the &upreme Court held that the strike of the <nion cannot be iewed as anything but illegal for ha ing been staged in open and knowing defiance of the assumption and return-to-work orders. The necessary conse(uence thereof are also detailed by the &upreme Court in its arious rulings. In /arcopper /inin0 Corp v ?rillantes (,24 SC(A 292), the Aigh Tribunal stated in no uncertain terms that -


Red Notes in Labor Law

Constr"%ti&e retren%! ent *n employee whose number of working days was reduced to 'ust two -+0 days a week due to the financial losses suffered by the employer=s business. having abandoned their employment. et al . he cannot use the same to feign what would otherwise be an illegal dismissal (Concorde -otel v Court o" Appeals. B-. and who was rotated in such a way that the number of working days had been substantially reduced for more than si# months. Inc v )%(C petitioner company effected some changes in its organi"ation by abolishing the position of &ales 4anager and simply adding the duties pre iously discharged by it to the duties of the Beneral 4anager to whom the &ales 4anager used to report. and therefore properly terminable. W!at are t!e +"idelines for t!e %orre%t inter. wor. . and -+0 The worker has manifested by o ert acts such an intention. and did not report back to work as directed in the !rder of 5G &eptember 566. The Court. loss of trust and confidence has been indiscriminately used by employers to 'ustify almost e ery instance of termination and as a defense against claims of arbitrary dismissal.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR /by staging a stri. ' ( )o 144*89.C so long as no iolation of law or arbitrary and malicious action is indicated (Ismael Santos v CA. In that case.C that the employee was thereby constructi ely dismissed or retrenched from employment (International -ard7are. we ha e no alternati e but to confirm the loss of employment status of all those who participated in the strike in defiance of the assumption order dated 7 &eptember 566. and considering further that the business was ultimately closed and sold off.. b. 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . howe er.ers forfeited their right to0 be readmitted to wor. In the case of 'eneral ?an@ and 9rust Compan! vs Court o" Appeals. was an e#ercise of business 'udgment on the part of petitioner company.**1). ' ( )o 8*77*. we held that the characteri"ation of pri ate respondent=s ser ices as no longer necessary or sustainable. is cogni"ant of the fact that in numerous dismissal cases. Is it wit!in t!e D"risdi%tion of t!e Labor Arbiter or t!e NLRC to . the &upreme Court upheld the ruling of the :L.e after the assumption of jurisdiction or certification for arbitration. 1+2 SC(A 289 the Court came up with the following guidelines for the application of the doctrine of loss of confidenceH -a0 loss of confidence which should not be simulated$ -b0 it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper. not a mere afterthought to 'ustify earlier action taken in bad faith. 1997). ' ( )o 141947.osition is no lon+er ne%essar#' W!#' &imilarly. Aence. 1989). illegal or un'ustified$ -c0 it should not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of o erwhelming e idence to the contrary$ and -d0 it must be genuine. while an employer is at liberty to dismiss an employee for loss of trust and confidence. 1ul! 2.. It is present when the following re(uisites concurH -50 The worker has no intention to return to work.retation of t!e DOCTRINE O4 LOSS O4 CON4IDENCE' E$. and so could be validly replaced%1 Viewed in the light of the foregoing.ass D"d+ ent on t!e so"ndness of t!e ana+e ent de%ision to de%lare t!at a . in >iltshire =ile Co .lain. Au0ust 1*. The wisdom or soundness of such characteri"ation or decision is not sub'ect to discretionary re iew on the part of the Labor *rbiter or of the :L. B8. Au0ust 9. Define t!e followin+? a. Constr"%ti&e resi+nation Constructi e .esignation is otherwise known as abandonment. Inc vs )%(C. B6.

it is not difficult to belie e that he would ha e thought twice before signing the (uitclaim inasmuch there was no reason for the termination of his employment.lo#ee a# be de oted' LABOR LAW >ES. as well as benefits arising from the CB* gi en only to the employees in . consent may be itiated not only through intimidation or iolence but also by mistake. Distin+"is! between ba%5 wa+es.89. @emotions. like dismissal. redundancy.a#. and to his other benefits or their monetary e(ui alent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to his actual reinstatement. Red Notes in Labor Law 68 &eparation 2ay is monetary amount intended to pro ide the employee money during the period in which he will be looking for another employment.or vs )%(C. .***). Aowe er. Septem.lo#ee' Are t!ese %o . <nder *rticle 588C of the Ci il Code.. +.lo#ee' The Labor Code -*rt.onents %onstit"te ba%5wa+es for a ran5 and file e .lain. affect the employment of a worker whose right to continued employment.W!at e%ono i% %o . Contrary to the assumption of both the Court of *ppeals and the oluntary arbitrator.***).ISRE7RESENTATION of essential fa%ts eno"+! to &itiate t!e &ol"ntariness of a RESIHNATION' E$. ' ( )o 14*. considering that demotion is. and se. under the same terms and conditions.onents e:"all# to a ana+erial e .T<I: into belie ing that there was a ground to 14. . Backwages is the relief gi en to an employee to compensate him for lost earnings during the period of his dismissal. the re(uired pre ious notice to the @!L3 is not necessary as the employee thereby acknowledged the e#istence of a alid cause for termination of his employment (Ismael E Santos vs CA. 2etitioners correctly point out that such an act has been declared by this Court in the case of 9rendline &mplo!ees re:"ired before an e . "n. Is d"e . Is . inclusi e of allowances.**1). . a. If an employee consented to his retrenchment or oluntarily applied for retrenchment with the employer due to the installation of labor sa ing de ices.espondent companyMs lack of candor and good faith in informing B*. ' ( )o 141947 1ul! 2. B@. 4oreo er. also a puniti e action.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS B9. is also protected by law.? Verily. BB. as tainted with bad faith and should not be countenanced as being pre'udicial and oppressi e to labor.T<I: to the mistaken belief that that there was legal ground for retrenchment and prompted him to ac(uiesce to his termination and sign the (uitclaim. . b. 1une 18. the mere fact that B*. backwages may also include the 58th month pay which is paid to rank and file employees.aid wa+es.2+*+. Is t!e one* ont! noti%e for se.T<I: was not physically coerced or intimidated does not necessarily imply that he freely or oluntarily consented to the terms of the (uitclaim. undue influence or fraud (?arJuin v Philippine Carpet /nu"acturin0 Corp . closure or cessation of operation or to pre ent financial losses to the business of the employer.Southern Philippines =ederation o" %a. *n employee is entitled to all the abo e benefit regardless if he is a rank and file employee or a managerial employee.60 pro ides that an employee who is un'ustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement and also to his full backwages. the employer being demoted should be gi en a chance to contest the same (%eonardo v )%(C '( )o 1.aration .aration for a"t!ori3ed %a"ses alwa#s re:"ired' NO. like dismissals. <npaid 9ages are wages earned prior to the illegal dismissal but are not yet paid to the employee. B). had the respondent company not misled B*.T<I: that he was being terminated due to a alid retrenchment and not because it sought to a oid compliance with the mandated wage increases amounted to a deception which led B*.

Thus. The said law intends to gi e the minimum retirement benefits to employees not entitled thereto under collecti e bargaining and other agreements. 1997). Alternati&e Answer? :o. a.l# to e . may be gi en retroacti e effect. which. 4anagerial employees cannot be gi en the same since they are ineligible to 'oin the labor organi"ation. t!e Retire ent Law. the Constitution commands that the &tate shall afford full protection to labor. . It has a retroacti e effect to include in its co erage the employees= ser ices to an employer rendered prior to its effecti ity.lain. by their nature. 4anagement also has rights which are entitled to recognition and protection$ 'ustice must be dispensed according to facts and the law$ and social 'ustice is not designed to destroy or oppress the employer. the law should accord more sympathy and compassion to the less pri ileged working man (=uentes v )%(C. &ection 80 are as followsH 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . &ocial 'ustice as a guiding principle in law may not be used by the courts if it collides with the e(ual protection clause of the Constitution. 4REQUENTL> ASAED QUESTIONS TO7IC? LABORQ SOCIAL =USTICE .. .ro&ision of t!e Constit"tion' The salient features of the protection to labor pro isions of the Constitution -*rticle PIII. TO7IC? CONSTITUTIONAL 7ROMISIONS RELATED TO LABOR LAW W!at are t!e salient feat"res of t!e .er 17.78 SC(A 8+. In the implementation of the principle of social 'ustice.rin%i.a# so%ial D"sti%e as a +"idin+ . or other agreements or oluntary retirement plans whose benefits are less than those prescribed under the pro iso in (uestion. :ot all labor cases may be automatically decided in fa or of the worker.!# wit! t!e wor5in+ an if it %ollides wit! t!e e:"al .4. ' ( )o 14187+. unless it will impair ested rights.lan' Can it be +i&en a retroa%ti&e effe%t' Oes. Aowe er. Its co erage applies to establishments with e#isting collecti e bargaining. Anot!er Alternati&e Answer? &ocial 'ustice as a guiding principle in Labor Law can be implemented side by side with the e(ual protection clause of the Constitution. . Does Re."bli% A%t No.rote%tion to labor . &ocial 'ustice is not a magic wand applicable in all circumstances.88 SC(A . S"++ested Answer? Oes. it should be borne in mind that social 'ustice ceases to be an effecti e instrument for the %e(uali"ation of the social and economic forces) by the &tate when it is used to shield wrongdoing (CoraFan 1amer v )%(C.lo#ees %o&ered wit! a &alid retire ent . $cto.rote%tion %la"se of t!e Constit"tion' E$.**1). The said law is a curati e social legislation. It applies to employees in the employee of employers at the time the law took effect and who are eligible to benefits under that statute (/%I< vs )%(C.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR the bargaining unit.le in labor law be so "sed b# t!e %o"rts in s# . )961. 1997).. Labor Law may be pro-labor in the sense that labor is gi en certain benefits not gi en to management. But this is not necessarily iolati e of the e(ual protection clause of the Constitution because said clause allows reasonable classification. The &tate is bound under the Constitution to afford full protection to Labor$ and when conflicting interests collide and they are to be weighed on the scales of social 'ustice.

4ecision 3a.i%5*".. including the right to strike.olis!. in accordance by law. As . t!e ar5ers !eld b# ea%! bo# were tallied and . 'oncerted Activities .tionist w!o +a&e a re%ei. and peaceful concerted acti ities.ri%e for t!eir ser&i%e. LABOR STANDARDS 9$PICK &/P%$L&(.. including the right to strike in accordance with law. including conciliation. At da#Cs end. humane conditions of work and a li ing wage. NaCSI .aid for. and ra+s.1ull protection to labor$ 'overage of Protection .Local and o erseas. humane conditions of work and a li ing wage. At t!e .ecognition of right of labor to its 'ust share in fruits of ises.ight of all workers to self-organi"ation. &ection 80 pro ides that the &tate shall afford protection to labor. date and ti e indi%ated.a# to t!e re%e. t!e law#er for NaCSI o&ed to e$%l"de t!e bo#s as &oters. !ow t!e bo#s went abo"t t!eir tas5s. +or. Wal5*in %"sto ers willin+ to wait were led b# t!e s!oe s!ine bo#s to a seat at t!e stand w!ere !e waited w!ile t!e bo# as5ed t!e %"sto er to .nionisms and 3ethod of 4etermination 'onditions of *mployment . collecti e bargaining and negotiations. 9orkers shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be pro ided by law. a s!oe s!ine stand was o. nor s". The &tate shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of oluntary modes in setting labor disputes. The &tate shall guarantee the right of all workers to self-organi"ation.. Share in 5ruits of Production . T!e bo#s si+ned a re%ei. T!e bo#s. C"sto ers not willin+ to wait left t!e s!oes wit! t!e standCs re%e.AR> O4 T<E RULE? 9hat determines employer-employee relationship is the power of the employer to control the employee regarding the manner of how the work should be done.a# ent for wor5 done.ight to security of t!e bo#s wit! t!e s!oe s!ine bo$es and t!eir %ontents' E$..ato C"sto * ade a5e s!oes to %"sto er s.tionist w!en t!ere were no waitin+ wal5* for t!e ser&i%e and .ight to participate in policy and decision making process affecting their rights and benefits as way to pro ide by law.etition for a %onsent ele%tion. Na.erated on its . A labor federation or+ani3ed NaCSI and filed a . The &tate shall regulate the relations between workers and employers recogni"ing the right to its 'ust share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on in estments. T!ere were 10 s!oe s!ine bo#s at t!e stand..&/P%$L&& (&%A9I$)S-IP SU.lain. t!e bo#s +ot ar5ers*ele%tion %onferen%e.. organi"ed unorgani"ed.e%ifi%ations and re. s# . The &tate shall afford protection to labor by promoting full employment and e(uality of employment opportunities for all. collecti e bargaining and negotiations.aired t!e . 2uarantees .at!i3in+ wit! t!e wor5ers. NaCSICs staff did not interfere wit!.ondin+ to t!e .air s!ined.ight to engage in peaceful concerted acti ities. and shall enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial 'onditions . and to e#pansion and growth. br"s!es. 4or ea%! .2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS LABOR LAW *"tent of Protection . T!e# owned t!eir s!oe s!ine bo$es wit! %leanin+ a+ent .ed*Arbiter !andlin+ t!e %ase. Wo"ld #o" r"lin+ be different if in t!is %ase. Doined t!e "nion. local and o erseas. Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . organi"ed and unorgani"ed$ *mployment Policy . ALTERNATIME ANSWER? The Constitution in -*rticle PIII. T!e bo#s were free to +et s!oes to be s!ined for t!e re%e.t wit! t!e .1ull employment and e(uality of employment opportunities for all. 9orkers are entitled to security of Processes . r"le on t!e obDe%tion.t to a%5nowled+e f"ll .tionist. As a ser&i%e to %"sto ers. 1.

that in the case at bar. there is no showing that the hotel=s action is a alid e#ercises of its management prerogati es and the right to make business 'udgments in accordance with law. roo bo#s. 61! S'RA 6789% ALTERNATIME ANSWER? The action of the Aarbor View Aotel is legal and alid.etent an.baldo and 'ru$. restrains or coerces employees in the e#ercise of their right to self-organi"ations.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR *s 4ed-arbiter. The action of Aarbor View Aotel would. Is t!e a%tion of t!e <arbor Miew <otel le+al and &alid' The action of Aarbor View Aotel is legal and alid. of bartenders. super ision of workers. de%ided to abolis! t!e . by this act. 9$PICK /A)A'&/&)9 P(&($'A9IE& SU. The alid e#ercise of management prerogati e. dismissal and recall of workers.ital in t!e for of Danitorial tools. a on+ ot!ers. nor super ise how the boys went about their task. lay-off of workers. Contracting out ser ices or functions being performed by union members becomes illegal only when it interferes with. including the hiring.) 4y ruling will not be different e en if UaC&I pro ided the boys with the shoe shine bo#es and their contents. ents.rotest of t!e Union. discretion and 'udgment encompasses all aspects of employment. I will rule that the shoe shine boys should be e#cluded as oters in the consent election. tools to be used. transfer of employees. t!e <otel %ontra%ted o"t t!e afore entioned Dob to t!e Cit# Ser&i%e =anitorial Co . The shoe shine boys are not employees of UaC&I and thus could not be considered as employees belonging to bargaining unit who will designate or select a bargaining representati e. a . 9$PICK C$)9(AC9$(M >A'&S SU. It is the e#istence of employer-employee relationship. at first glance. working methods. a%!ineries and %o .AR> O4 T<E RULE? * labor-only contract is a contract between an employer and a person who supplies workers and does not ha e substantial capital or in estment in the form of it is said that %UaC&I=s staff did not interfere with. O&er t!e . time. it is the prerogati e of management to adopt cost-sa ing measures to ensure economy and efficiency. or limited by special laws. place and manner of work. e:"i. unless shown to be gross oppressi e or contrary to law. for reasons of e%ono # and effi%ien%#.osition of !o"se en and stewards w!o do t!e %leanin+ of t!e !otelCs . working regulations. 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . processes to be followed."bli% areas.ona"ide inde.. restrain or coerce employees in the e#ercises of their right to self-organi"ation. Company policies and regulations are. appear to be an unfair labor practice under *rticle +E7 -c0 e. they are not under the control of UaC&I which is an essential element for the e#istence of employer-employee relationship.endent %ontra%tor w!i%! !as a s"bstantial %a. e#cept as pro ided for.AR> O4 T<E RULE? The management has the right to use its discretion and 'udgment in the determination of policies regarding the aspects of employment.San 3iguel 'orporation vs% .lo#ees %onsistin+. restrains or coerces employees in the e#ercise of their right to self-organi"ation.g.ower. work super ision. generally binding and alid on the parties and must be complied with until finally re ised or amended unilaterally or preferably through negotiation or by competent authority . In fact. UaC&I.) Considering. Contracting out ser ices or functions being performed by union members is not illegal per se. howe er. is not yet e#ercising control that is determinati e of the e#istence or non-e#istence of control o er them. D"rin+ t!e lifeti e of t!e CBA. <arbor Miew <otel !as an e$istin+ Colle%ti&e Bar+ainin+ A+ree ent /CBA2 wit! t!e "nion of ran5*and*file e . work assignments. They are not employees of UaC&I because according to the gi en facts. !o"se en and stewards. Contracting out ser ices or functions being performed by union members becomes illegal only when it interferes with. and discipline. In the statement of facts. <arbor Miew <otel. %to contract out ser ices or functions being performed by union members if such will interfere with. waiters.

+. allowances and other benefits or their monetary e(ui alent.6 and 6. is 'ointly and se erally liable with the independent contractor to the employees of the latter to the e#tent of the work performed under the contract. 'ob or pro'ect. *n award of backwages is gi en to an employee who is un'ustly dismissed. machineries. The employer who contracts the ser ices of the labor-only contractor is directly liable to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the employer. The cause of action here is non-payment of wages or salaries. -*rts. the employer who contracted out the 'ob is 'ointly and se erally liable with the contractor only to the e#tent of the workperformed under the contract. -10.2eneral <aptist <ible 'ollege vs% &=R' 617 S'RA >79% 9$PICK $E&(9I/& PAL Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . !n the other hand. ALTERNATIME ANSWER? *n employer who engages the ser ices of a bona fide % independent contractor) is solidarily liable with his contractor or sub-contractor only for non-payment or under-payment of wages and other labor standards pro isions of the Labor Code.aid wa+es. <pon the other hand. an employer who deals with a %labor-only) contractor shall be primarily responsible to the workers in the same manner and e#tent as if the latter were directly employed by him. Labor Code0 LABOR LAW (b) Distin+"is! t!e liabilities of an e .lo#er w!o en+a+es t!e ser&i%es of a .. In the e ent that the independent contractor fails to pay the wages of his employees. ALTERNATIME ANSWER? *n award of backwages is gi en to an employee who is un'ustly dismissed. . *s for the person who engages the ser ices of a %labor only) contractor. among others. work premises. for the wages. 'ob or pro'ect is the indirect employer of the employees who ha e been hired by the independent contractor to perform said work. -*rt 5CG-5C. task. 5CG. !n the other hand. Labor Code0. The cause of action here is non-payment of wages or salaries. machineries. whereas an employer that it normally grants to its regular or direct employees. an indirect employer.endent %ontra%torG fro one w!o en+a+es a Flabor*onl#G %ontra%tor' * person who engages the ser ices of a bona:fide % independent contractor) for the performance of any work. In an independent contract. e(uipments. an award for unpaid wages is for an employee who has actually worked but has not been paid the wages he is entitled to recei e for such work done. *n award for backwages is to compensate an employee who has been illegally dismissed. which said employee did not recei e from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the time of his actual reinstatement. -*rt. an award of unpaid wages is gi en to an employee who has not been paid his salaries or wages for ser ices actually rendered. work premises. Labor Code0 /%2 Distin+"is! between an award for ba%5 wa+es and an award for "n. and the workers recruited and placed by such person are perfoming acti ities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS e(uipment. *n employer who deals with a bona-fide independent contractor shall only be subsidiary liable. /a2 W!at is a Flabor*onl#G %ontra%t' %Labor-only) contract is a contract between an employer and a person who supplies workers and does not ha e substantial capital or in estment in the form of tools.onaN"ide Finde. in the same manner and e#tent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him. task. the latter is considered merely as an agent of the former who shall be responsible to the workers hired by the %labor only) contractor in the same manner and e#tent as if the directly employed such workers. an award of unpaid wages is gi en to an employee who has not been paid his salaries or wages for ser ices actually rendered. if the contractor or sub-contractor fails to pay the wages to the workers in accordance with the Labor Code. !n the other hand.

erfor ed on T"esda#. this iolates the pro ision of the Labor Code which states that undertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by o ertime work on any other day. or &iolati&e of. *s for the pro ision in @anilo=s contract of employment that he shall recei e time off with pay in lieu of o ertime.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR SU..osition of dri&er in t!e otor.liers and deli&er t!e sa e to a bo"ti:"e in a all owned b# t!e fa e$e%"ti&es e&en be#ond t!e ordinar# ei+!t*!o"r wor5 da#. * person is a house helper or is engaged in domestic or household ser ice if heQshe renders ser ices in the employer=s home which are usually necessary or desirable to the maintenance and en'oyment thereof and which includes ministering to the personal comfort and con enience of the members of the employer=s household including the ser ices of family dri ers.. >ednesda!. Are t!e abo&e .lo# ent in %onfor it# wit!. Is t!e %lai of t!e dri&er &alid' * family dri er who dri es the family an to fetch merchandise from suppliers and deli ers the same to bouti(ue in a mall owned by the family for whom he works should be paid the minimum daily wage of a dri e in a commercial establishment.AR> O4 T<E RULE? <ndertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by o ertime work on any other day. industrial or agricultural enterprise at a wage or salary rate lower than pro ided by law for agricultural or nonagricultural workers. and =rida! R Dri&e t!e fa il# %ar to brin+ t!e and fet%! t!e %!ildren to and fro s%!ool.. T!"rsda# and Sat" wit! a %ontra%t of e .a# e&er# ont! and ti e off wit! .an#. times the daily wage may be sufficient to include o ertime pay. t!e law' 3#cept for the pro ision that @anilo shall ha e time off with pay when the company=s e#ecuti es using the cars do not need @anilo=s ser ice for more than eight hours a day. the pro isions of the contract of employment of @anilo are not iolati e of any labor law because the instead impro e upon the present pro isions of pertinent labor laws.a# w!en t!e %o . <e was . !e s!o"ld be . in lie" of o&erti e. and Saturda! R Dri&e t!e fa il# &an to fet%! er%!andise fro s". San Beda Colle+e of T!e wee5l# wor5 s%!ed"le of a dri&er is as follows? /onda!. re+"lar si%5 and &a%ation lea&es. the monthly rate e(ui alent to of t!e %ontra%t of e . * family dri er who dri es the family an to fetch merchandise from suppliers and deli ers the same to bouti(ue in a mall owned by the family for whom he works should be paid the minimum daily wage of a dri er in a commercial establishment. (b) T!e sa e dri&er %lai s t!at for wor5 . in lieu of o ertime.oration. Danilo 4lores a. Thus. (a) Is t!e dri&er a !o"se !el. 9$PICK -$<S&-&%P&(SM >A'&S SU. Danilo was infor ed t!at !e wo"ld fre:"entl# be wor5in+ o&erti e as !e wo"ld !a&e to dri&e for t!e %o . 2ermission gi en to the employer to go on lea e on some other day of the week shall not e#empt the employer from paying additional compensation re(uired by the Labor Code. The fi e-day lea e with pay e ery month has no counterpart in Labor Law and is ery generous. 9uesda!. 8 da#*lea&e wit! . .AR> O4 T<E RULE? :o house helper shall be assigned to work in a commercial. a "ltinational %or.lo# ent w!erein !e wo"ld be .an#Cs e$e%"ti&es "sin+ t!e %ars do not need DaniloCs ser&i%e for ore t!an ei+!t !o"rs a da#. There is no labor law re(uiring the payment of sick and acation lea es e#cept for a fi eday ser ice incenti e lea e in the Labor Code.lied for t!e ..aid a ont!l# rate e:"i&alent to -8 ti es !is dail# wa+e.ool of Hold Co .er' Law 69 The dri er is a house helper. 9hursda!.aid to t!e ini " dail# wa+e of a dri&er of %o er%ial establis! ent.

1!A S'RA 8A1. t!e !irin+ of En+ineer FBG s!owed t!at t!ere is a %ontin"in+ need for !is ser&i%es. The fact that the petitioners worked for se eral pro'ects of pri ate respondent company is no basis to consider them as regular employees. The fact that he has been working for Construction Broup for a total of ten -5C0 years does not make him a regular employee when it is ery clear from the Contracts of 3mployment that he signed that he has always been engaged as a pro'ect employee. !e is a re+"lar e .. <e was assi+ned to fi&e /82 Contra%ts of E . its duration. Si$ ont!s after !is se.roDe%t.letion of t!e fift! .e%ified t!e na e of t!e . and the temporary pro'ect nature of the engagement of his ser ices are clearly stated$ hence. 17789 2ro'ect employees are not considered regular employees. e#cept where the employment has been fi#ed for a specific pro'ect or undertaking the completion of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS The Labor Code -in *rticle 5E80 pro ides that no house helper shall be assigned to work in a commercial. The rationale for this rule is that if a pro'ect has already been completed. industrial or agricultural enterprise at a wage or salary rate lower than pro ided by law for agricultural or non-agricultural workers. i.roDe%tQ instead. 4"rt!er ore. T!e Hro".on %o .roDe%t in A"+"st 1BB@. The tenure of pro'ect employee is co-terminus with the pro'ect in connection with which his ser ices were engaged. s.. A %onstr"%tion +ro". En+ineer in a Constr"%tion Hro".AR> O4 T<E RULE? *n employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform acti ities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. won a bid for a lar+e %onstr"%tion . did not en+a+e t!e ser&i%es of En+ineer FAG as a 7roDe%t En+ineer for t!is new . U. ALTERNATIME ANSWER? The claim of 3ngineer %*) is not correct. Is t!e %lai of En+ineer FAG %orre%t' The claim of 3ngineer %*) that he is a regular employee and not a pro'ect employee is not correct.arate . 3ngineer %*) falls within the e#emption of *rt.egular and casual employment. The Labor Code pro idesH *rt.. t!e Hro". the employer-employee relationship ceases to e#ist. . 9$PICK -$<(S >$(O&# LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . and !is lon+ #ears of ser&i%e !e !ad rendered to t!e Hro". after the end of the pro'ect. +7C. . In all the fi e -. +7C.orar#*.. their ser ices. 177B9. they will always remain pro'ect employees regardless of the number of pro'ects in which they ha e worked (3anansag v% &=R'.aration. being needed only when there are pro'ects to be undertaken. !e is a lon+ #ears of ser&i%e !e !ad rendered to t!e Hro". 9$PICK (&'<%A( &/P%$L&&S A)# P($1&C9 &/P%$L&&S SU. Thus. <e wor5ed for a total of ten /102 #ears /1B@)*1BB@2 in t!e fi&e se. By the ery nature of their employee=s business.lo# ent !e si+ned.0 successi e contracts of employment of 3ngineer %*) the name of the pro'ect. e#cept where the employment has been fi#ed for a specific pro'ect or undertaking the completion of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.roDe%ts.roDe%t. !is ser&i%es were ter inated..roDe%t en+ineer at t!e ti e !e was first !ired. 61! S'RA ?66.e.4e @campo v% &=R'. !ired En+ineer FAG as a 7roDe%t En+ineer in 1B@). it en+a+ed t!e ser&i%es of En+ineer FB. its d"ration and t!e te .lo#ee and not a . &uch pro'ect employee has no legal rights to insist that the Construction Broup for a subse(uent pro'ect of said Broup should employ him.G En+ineer FAG %lai s t!at b# &irt"e of t!e nat"re of !is f"n%tions.roDe%t nat"re of t!e en+a+e ent of !is ser&i%es. it would be un'ust to re(uire the employer to maintain them in the payroll while they are doing absolutely nothing e#cept waiting for another pro'ect .*n employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform acti ities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

!one on so t!at !e %o"ld be %onta%ted w!ene&er !is ser&i%es as dri&er be%o e ne%essar#.oni%a 7l#wood Cor.le hours 9$PICK 1$? C$)9(AC9I)' SU.17719. . he can use his time e""ectivel! and 0ain"ull! to his o7n purpose.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR SU. *s for Bong. work premises and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of the business. 1or another *rnold was not free from the control and direction of &ta.e ar0ued that in the case o" ?on0 7ho is not reJuired to sta! in the o""ice .oni%a 7l#wood Cor. In%.oration to Arnold.AR> O4 T<E RULE? There is %'ob contracting) where -50 the contractor carries on an independent business and undertakes the contract work on his own account.) Aere Bong is re(uired to stay at the office after office hours so he could be called to dri e the trucks of the Company. free form the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work e#cept as to the results thereof$ and -+0 the contractor has substantial capital or in estment in the form of tools. e(uipment. machineries. based on t!eir . the waiting time of Lito and Bong should be considered as compensable hours.. relati&es and nei+!bors for t!e Dob. )oteK It could . the time that he is at home ma! mean that the! are not compensa.o&ers. work premises and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of the business . *rnold did not ha e sufficient capital or in estment for one. !ired !is friends.oration entered into a %ontra%t wit! Arnold for t!e illin+ of l" ber as well as t!e !a"lin+ of waste wood . under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method. it was held that there is %'ob contracting) when -50 the contractor carries on an independent business and undertakes the contract work on his own account.rod"%tion or t!e n" ber of wor5ers and t!e ti e "sed in %ertain areas of wor5. The applicable rule isH % *n employee who is re(uired to remain on call in the employer=s premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effecti ely and gainfully for his own purpose shall be considered as working while on call. Sta. under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method. 4onica 2lywood Corporation 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of -a0 .aid b# Sta. Thus.rod"%ts.tion roo . 6B6 S'RA >A .=im v &=R'.ut is allo7ed to 0o home. Arnold.ensable wor5in+ !o"rs' The hours of Lito and Bong while on call can be considered compensable hours. free form the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work e#cept as to the results thereof$ and -+0 the contractor has substantial capital or in estment in the form of tools. ent nor %a. Bon+ is allowed to +o !o e after offi%e !o"rs b"t is re:"ired to 5ee. W!ile at t!e !ead offi%e. machineries. In two cases decided by the &upreme Court. T!eir wa+es were . thus. he is re(uired to keep his cellular phone so that he could be contacted whene er his ser ices as dri er as needed. All wor5 a%ti&ities and s%!ed"les were fi$ed b# t!e %o .ro&ided t!e e:"i. T!e Co . !is %ell"lar . On t!e ot!er !and.ersonnel ana+er to D"st sta# at t!e !ead offi%e after offi%e !o"rs be%a"se !e %o"ld be %alled to dri&e t!e tr"%5s. Us"' Is *rnold a 'ob contractorV 3#plain briefly.ital for t!e Dob. on t!e ot!er !and.AR> O4 RULE? *n employee who is re(uired to remain on call in the employer=s premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effecti ely and gainfully for his own purpose shall be considered as working while on call. Lito A"lan+5"lan+ and Bon+ Uron+s"lon+ are e . i" he is not actuall! as@ed . Lito erel# waits in t!e ana+erCs re%e. ent and tools be%a"se Arnold !ad neit!er tools and e:"i. e(uipment.! cellular phone to report to the o""ice to drive a car. Lito is re:"ired b# t!e . Wo"ld t!e !o"rs t!at Lito and Bon+ are on %all be %onsidered %o .lo#ed as tr"%5 dri&ers of Line . No. In the problem gi en. *n employee who is not re(uired to lea e word at his home or with company officials where he may be reached is not working while on call. *n employee who is not re(uired to lea e word at his home or with company officials where he may be reached is not working while on call. .an# ..

ro+ra ' . T!e welfare . &ta. the abo e pro isions could be considered as the foundation of the agrarian reform program.) Then in *rticle PIII of the Constitution. T!e %olle%ti&e bar+ainin+ a+ree ent of t!e Holden Cor. /b2 W!o is liable for t!e %lai s of t!e wor5ers !ired b# Arnold' E$. To this end. landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priorityH 1% agricultutral lessees and share tenants0 6% regular "nder t!e 1B@) Constit"tion' W!o LABOR LAW The 567.ers0 >% other farmwor. and workers hired by *rnold.ers0 8% seasonal farmwor.etition wit! t!e So%ial Se%"rit# S#ste for e$e .. Will t!e .a%5a+e of welfare benefits far s". in dealing with social 'ustice and human rights.tion fro %o&era+e. The state shall further pro ide incenti es for oluntary landsharing. the lands co ered by the C*. %integration) of other benefits is allowed.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS because all the work acti ities and schedules were fi#ed by the company. W!at is t!e fo"ndation of t!e a+rarian refor are t!e dire%t benefi%iaries of t!e .oration In%.ines. This is so because *rnold is considered a mere agent of &ta.AR> O4 T<E RULE? Co erage under the &&& is compulsory where employer-employee relations e#ist. 17770 <aguio et% al% v% &=R'.an# and t!e "nion Dointl# filed a .lo#ees. <nder the Comprehensi e *grarian . 4onica 2lywood a . among othersH the state shall. Constitution enunciates in *rticle II as one of the state policies that the &tate shall promote comprehensi e rural de elopment and agrarian reform. by law. * finding that *rnold is a labor only contractor is e(ui alent to declaring that there e#ist an employeremployee relationship between &ta.a. and t!e Holden Cor. *rnold is not 'ob contractor Ae is engaged in labor-only contracting. In determining the retention limits.tion fro %o&era+e .eform Law. T!e %o . it is also stated that %the &tate shall promote industriali"ation and full employment based on sound agricultural de elopment and agrarian reform. who are landless. . Therefore. the state shall encourage and undertake the 'ust distribution of all agricultural for in t!e So%ial Se%"rit# A%t of 1BB). undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of framers and regular farm I workers. there is this pro ision. 6B6 S'RA >A 17719. and sub'ect to the payment of 'ust compensation.2 shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same' :o. sub'ect to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the congress may prescribe. 1? S'RA 1B?9 9$PICK C$/P(&-&)SIE& A'(A(IA) (&=$(/ %A> 1.lan of t!e %o . or e(uity considerations. the plan may be integrated with the &&& plan. 4onica plywood Corp . 4onica 2lywood Corp.arison wit! t!ose . Aowe er.etition for e$e . de elopmental. taking into account ecological.lo#er wit! no %ontrib"tions fro t!e e . or in the absence thereof.) Taken together..ers0 % actual tillers or occupants of public lands0 A% collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries0 and ?% others directly wor. Ad ittedl#.erior in %o .lain briefl#.) In *rticle PII of the Constitution. is liable for the claims of the workers hired by *rnold. :e ertheless.oration Wor5ers Union .=im v &=R'.an# is f"nded solel# b# t!e e .lan in t!e 7!ili. to own directly or workers. 9$PICK S$CIA% S&C<(I9L AC9 $= 1997M C$E&(A'& SU. the state shall respect the right of small landowners. &till it is integration and not e#emption from &&& law. it is t!e best welfare . if the pri ate plan is superior to that of &&&.Philippine <looming 3ills 'o% Cnc% v SSS. to recei e a 'ust share of the fruits thereof.ros. in dealing with the national economy and patrimony. because co erage under the &&& is compulsory where employer-employee on the land% Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . 8B8 S'RA >86.

or workers on the land. the sworn aluation by the owner.ights it is pro ided that pri ate property shall not be taken for public use without 'ust compensation. at the option of the beneficiaries. among others. under the C*. so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support e#tended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. to the payment of 'ust compensation.b. it is the courts. All tips. bar or other similar establishment. the same shall be sub'ect. the person who is depri ed of his property should be gi en the fir and full e(ui alent alue of the property that is taken from him. the ta# declarations. t!e ff. In t!e e .ensation "nder t!e CARL of 1B@@ for Bill of ri+!ts' <ow it is deter ined "nder t!e for er' D"st %o . which may determine ultimately 'ust food and drin5s w!i%! are ser&ed b# wo en w!o are dressed li5e 7la#bo# B"nnies. shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary. actual use of income. .ear? ACompensation .College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR The children of landowners. Distin+"is! D"st %o .. 9$PICK %A?$( S9A)#A(#SM C$)#I9I$)S $= &/P%$L/&)9 %A?$( (&%A9I$)SM I%%&'A% #IS/ISSA% SU. The C*.. compensation could be in cash and in go ernment financial instruments like Land Bank of the 2hilippines bonds. shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the C*. commissions and other "orms o" pa!ment received "rom customers minus 1*5 69 Law . and the assessment made by the go ernment assessors shall be considered. they may be granted ownership of other lands a ailable for distribution under the C*.L. lessees.erates a ni+!t %l"b alon+ Ro$as Bo"le&ard. under the effecti e control and super ision of the employer for a substantial period of time as determined by the &ecretary of Labor shall be considered as an employee of such establishment for purposes of labor and social legislation. constitution on agrarian reform.L.2.ights and in agrarian reform are similar in the sense that in both situations. howe er. it shall be unlawful for an employer to discharge a woman employee on account of her pregnancy. *ctual tenant tillers in the landholding shall not be e'ected or remo ed therefrom. as pro ided under the Code. The @*. it is pro ided that in the 'ust distribution of all agricultural lands. 1.L. who are (ualified to be awardees of not more than three hectares. the compensation may be in shares of stock in go ernment owned and controlled corporations.eform and the Land Bank of the 2hilippines. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-owners and by the go ernment to the property as well as the non-payment of ta#es or loans secured from any go ernment financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its aluation. *lso. disposed of or abandoned their land are dis(ualified to became beneficiaries under the C*. its nature. cocktail lounge. the Land Bank of the 2hilippines shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may agreed upon by the landowner and the @epartment of *grarian . Beneficiaries under 2@ +. the cost of ac(uisition of the land the current alue of like properties. 1armers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of pri ately owned lands will be gi en preferential rights in the distributions of lands from the public domain. due to the landowner=s retention rights or to the number o tenants. shall be gi en preference in the distribution of the land of their parents. Cl"b 7aris is an entertain ent entit# t!at o. In both situations.L pro ides that in determining 'ust compensation. <nder the C*. The @*. * basic (ualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness aptitude and ability to culti ate and make the land as producti e as possible. or in ta# credits. In the pro isions of the 567. with or without compensation in any nightclub.lo# ent %ontra%t of ea%! wo an. there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them.ensation "nder t!e San Beda Colle+e of In the Bill of . ultimately. If. 2regnancy is not a alid cause for dismissal because.AR> O4 T<E RULE? *ny woman who is permitted or suffered to a. who ha e culpably sold. massage clinic. T!e %l"b . The concepts of 'ust compensation in the Bill of .2. *t the option of the landowner..

and also from 5C pm. e en if the directi e to return to work is not e#pressly stated in the assumption of s"%! an order.. &he is also entitled to premium pay since she works . TO7IC? STRIAELLOCAOUTQ CO. 618 S'RA ? 79% =enson S =enson /=S=2 is a do esti% %or. The mere issuance of an assumption order by the &ecretary of Labor automatically carries with it a return to work order.. s!e as5ed for a aternit# lea&e wit! .. includin0 Sunda!s and -olida!s $ther conditions : /ust remain sin0leM marria0e or pre0nanc! is valid cause "or dismissal B Bit"in a. no strike or lockout shall be declared after the assumption of 'urisdiction by the &ecretary. +G8-g0 of the Labor Code. &he works 6 hours a day. <nder *rt. such assumption shall ha e the effect of automatically en'oining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption order.4ivine +ord . <nder *rt. to a night differential pay.a#. massage clinic.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS -ours o" 7or@ : 8 pm to + am. coc. all striking or lockout employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and re-admit all workers under the same terms and conditions pre ailing before the strike or lockout. ba%5wa+es. 9 ont!s later.niversity vs% Secretary of =abor. Those who iolate the foregoing shall be sub'ect to disciplinary action or e en criminal prosecution. at most.lo# ent %ontra%t. and also on regular holidays. Its ran5*and*file wor5ers or+ani3ed t!e =enson E . 2regnancy is not a alid cause for dismissal because.tail"te. and thus. it shall be unlawful for an employer to discharge a woman employee on account of her pregnancy. &he is thus entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage.osals for a Colle%ti&e Bar+ainin+ A+ree ent wit! t!e %o . and !olida# . <nder *rt. LABOR RELATIONS TO7IC? ASSU. .AR> O4 T<E RULE? The &ecretary of Labor may e#ercise the power of compulsory arbitration o er the labor dispute when such dispute may cause or likely cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest.7TION ORDER In a labor dis. bar or other similar establishment.lied and was !ired b# t!e Cl"b. After !a&in+ been %ertified as t!e e$%l"si&e bar+ainin+ a+ent of t!e a. &he is also entitled to !T pay.G Hi&e t!e le+al i . &ince her working hours are from G pm to 8 am.oration en+a+ed in t!e an"fa%t"rin+ of %ons" er . under the effective control and supervision of the employer for a substantial period of time as determined by the Secretary of =abor shall be considered as an employee of such establishment for purposes of labor and social legislation%1 Bituin was illegally dismissed.) These can=t be considered compensation. LABOR LAW (. Red Notes in Labor Law 68 .rod" Order. / any woman who is permitted or suffered to wor. If one had already taken place at the time of assumption. 1or the latter. +GE of the Labor Code. as pro ided under the Code. she should be paid at +CC/ of her basic rate.a#. %ontainin+ t!e aforesaid . days a week. De%ide.a#. works on her weekly rest day..riate bar+ainin+ "nit. a national "nion. S!e si+ned t!e e . with or without compensation in any nightclub. The &ecretary of Labor and 3mployment may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this pro ision as well as he may issue to enforce the same. Bituin is an employee of the Club.7ULSOR> ARBITRATION t!e Se%retar# of Labor iss"ed an FAss" . =EUT7A4LU s"b itted its . they could be considered as ser ice charges which Bituin can keep. Bit"in s"ed t!e Cl"b for ille+al dis issal. a d"l# re+istered lo%al "nion affiliated wit! 7A4LU. dail!. Instead of +rantin+ !er aternit# lea&e. OT .lo#ees Union /=EU2. t!e ana+e ent of t!e %l"b fired ! &he is entitled to backwages.587. The compensation gi en to Bituin was %all tips.

If t!e %ons" er . probationary or permanent. ha e substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representati e.owers of %o . all rankand-file employees. =EU*7A4LU filed a Noti%e of Stri5e."lsor# arbitration in t!e labor dis. and its National Se%retar# Heneral. Cnc% vs% 5errer-'alleja. . rates of pay. T!e Se%retar# of Labor s"bse:"entl# ass" ed D"risdi%tion o&er t!e labor dis.osals as t!e Colle%ti&e Bar+ainin+ A+ree ent of t!e .an# %annot be %onsidered a stri5e in an ind"str# indis.niversity vs% Secretary of =abor. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as bases for eligibility to ote in the petition for certification"te. The &ecretary of Labor can decide the labor dispute by awarding the D3< CB* proposals as the Collecti e Bargaining *greement of the parties because when the &ecretary of Labor -*rticle +G8 >g?0 assumes 'urisdiction o er a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. TO7IC? 7ROBATIONAR> E.oration en+a+ed in t!e an"fa%t"rin+ of %ons" er .Airtime Specialists. ALTERNATIME ANSWER? No.ensable for t!e national interest.4ivine +ord . . ha e substantial interest in the selection of the bargaining representati e.tion of D"risdi%tion b# t!e Se%retar# of Labor is not . T!e re.Airtime Specialists. that as an e#ception to the general rule.) Collecti e bargaining co ers all aspects of the employment relation and the resultant CB* negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the bargaining unit.rod"%ts.lo#ees entitled to &ote in a %ertifi%ation ele%tion' W!#' In a certification election. the &ecretary of Labor now has the power to set or fi# wages."te b# awardin+ t!e =EU CBA 7ro. Aence. all rank-and-file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to ote. the &ecretary of Labor e#ercises the power of compulsory arbitration o er the labor dispute. =S= obstinatel# and %onsistentl# ref"sed to offer an# %o"nter*."te. *ll they need to be eligible to ote is to belong to the bargaining unit. Can t!e Se%retar# of Labor de%ide t!e labor dis.resentation iss"e wit!in 7A4LU s!all !a&e been resol&ed wit! 1!B S'RA ?>79% ALTERNATIME ANSWER? 2robationary employees may not be entitled to ote in a certification election where only regular employees belong to a bargaining unit and probationary employees do not belong to such bargaining unit.osal and to bar+ain %olle%ti&el# wit! =EU*7A4LU "ntil t!e re.AR> O4 T<E RULE? *ll rank-and-file employees. W!at is in&ol&ed in t!e %ase in :"estion is a %or. ANOT<ER ALTERNATIME ANSWER? 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . Habriel . The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as bases for eligibility to ote in the petition for certification election. The law refers to %all) the employees in the bargaining unit.iro.resentation iss"e wit!in 7A4LU is . This principle is clearly stated in *rticle +.robationar# e .lain briefl#. meaning. hours of work or terms and conditions of employment by determining what should be the CB* of the parties ..endin+ resol"tion before t!e Offi%e of t!e Se%retar# of Labor. . t!en t!e ass" .College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR In t!e eanti e.ann# 7a5#ao.. It is the belonging to a bargaining unit that entitles an employee to ote in a certification election."te wit!in 7A4LU.rod"%ts t!at are bein+ an"fa%t"red are not s"%! t!at a stri5e a+ainst t!e %o . Oes. !e %annot le+all# e$er%ise t!e .arties' E$. 1!B S'RA ?>79% Are .ower*str"++le o%%"rred wit!in t!e national "nion 7A4LU between its National 7resident. 618 S'RA ? 79. probationary or Cnc% vs% 5errer-'alleja. T!erefore.7LO>EESQ CERTI4ICATION ELECTION SU. a . B# reason of t!is intra*"nion dis. of the Labor Code which states that the %labor organi"ation designated or selected by the ma'ority of the employees in such unit shall be the e#clusi e representati e of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collecti e bargaining.

resents all t!e ran5 and t!e file e .an# for ed and re+istered a labor "nion.ress"re Con+ress to in%rease t!e dail# ini " wa+e.. shall."t a . of t!e "nion offi%ers and t!e . be considered an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union. )oteK Credit should . On . The picket was peaceful.e.erations were .el t!e bar+ainin+ table at t!at .2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Oes.e. and a set of e%ono i% de ands.l# wit! so t!e stri5e will be le+al.aral#3ed alt!o"+! %o . *pplying the rule in 2hilippine Blooming 4ills to the effect that the workers only personally assembled to influence the decision making process of the go ernment which is a constitutionally guaranteed right.i%5et t!e followin+ da#. without their committing illegal acts. and =ose Ra ire3 were brot!ers and sisters.. caused by the commission of an unfair labor practice by an employer.atin+ e bers. i.a# (6. any union officer who knowingly participated in it may be declared to ha e lost his employment status.resident tells #o" t!at t!e# .lannin+ to affiliate wit!.CI2. *ny employee. leaders!i. 9$PICK S9(IO&S SU. On De%e ber 10.i%5et was li5ewise .re ises.resident went to #o". 1B@). -c0?. Estela. T!e .e. t!e %o .. 1B@B. caused by the commission of an unfair labor practice by an employer.lo#ees..ort of its efforts to . i.arti%i.inion on w!at t!e "nion a# lawf"ll# do to %o . it should either be an economic strike. . meaning such union officer could be legally terminated. coolin0 o"" period 7orfirio. i e stri@e vote. 68 ran5 and file wor5ers of t!e %o . Union FIG is a e ber of t!e UA.G Union FIG i ediatel# %o .ersons.. and 10 ad inistrati&e e .ea%ef" i.inin+ Co . 1or a strike to be legal. t!e so"+!t #o"r le+al ad&i%e on t!e le+alit# of t!e stri5e and t!e liabilit#. 7. Union FIG sta+ed a stri5e and . anno"n%ed t!e end of t!e FWel+a n+ Ba#an. >*rticle +.e.. does not constitute sufficient ground for the termination of their employment. 10 deli&er# en. The mere participation of the union . The strike by <nion %P) was neither an economic strike or an unfair strike. <e wants #o"r o. Because it was an illegal strike.e 0iven to ans7er that "ocus on the procedural reJuirement "or a stri@e to .as de andin+ re%o+nition as bar+ainin+ a+ent of all o. T!e "nion .lo#ees of t!e 7"ritan . They allowed ingress and egress to and from the company premises.ar5etin+ Co.lo#ees were allowed in+ress and e+ress to and fro t!e %o . the facts show that no illegal acts were offi%ials and s". Crisosto o. W!at is #o"r o. 1B@B. caused by a bargaining deadlock or an unfair labor practice strike. Thus. whether employed for a definite period or not.AR> O4 T<E RULE? 1or a strike to be legal. and re.inion' E$.as . T!e# sent a letter to 7a+as. it was an illegal strike. 7. W!at will #o"r ad&i%e be' ana+e ent to %o e to LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 T!e "nion . As a res" e . t!e UA. <e wants to 5now t!e le+al re:"ire ents t!at t!e "nion "st %o . ALTERNATIME ANSWER? The strike is legal and the union officers and participating union members incur no liability for calling and participating in the strike respecti ely. it should either be an economic strike. dire%tors and offi%ers of t!e 7a+as. if an#.. (0 ser&i%e . caused by a bargaining deadlock or an unfair labor practice strike..CI sold offi%e a%!ines and s". beginning on his first day of ser ice.e le0al. 4ollowin+ t!e %all for a nationwide stri5e. All were sto%5!olders. i.CI ref"sed to re%o+ni3e t!e "nion.lo#ed (0 sales . "r+ed its e ber*"nions to Doin a FWel+a n+ Ba#anG in s". It e .ersonnel. The strike was illegal.refer to +o on stri5e.lies. In%. as labor ad&iser of t!e federation w!i%! t!e# were . *s for the union members who participated in the strike. On .oint. en%losin+ %!e%5*off a"t!ori3ation for s of t!e "nion e bers. W!at ad&i%e will #o" +i&e' .a# (@.. notice. /7.lain.arita.

The union should not actually go on strike until after 8C days -if the strike is because of the <L2 committed by 24CI. either at a meeting or through a referendum. 1or termination of employment based on any of the 'ust causes for termination. * ma'ority of the union members on the bargaining unit should appro e the declaration of strike. The union should furnish the Bureau of Labor .lo#er %o .elations of the :otice of meeting where a strike ote will be taken.lo#ee' The employer should gi e the employee being terminated due process. * copy of the notice should also be ser ed upon 24CI.. are not merely de minimis. if an#.AR> O4 T<E RULE? To meet the re(uirements of due process.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR I will ad ice the union president to file a petition for certification so that after being certified as the collecti e bargaining representati e. 9$PICK I%%&'A% #IS/ISSA%M #<& P($C&SS (&I<I(&/&)9S SU. w!at are t!e re:"ire ents before an e . its refusal to bargain collecti ely0 after filing a notice of strike. -50 a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought$ and -+0 subse(uent notice. physical fitness. regular.. whiche er is higher$ -E0 that the employer e#ercises his prerogati e to retrench employees in good faith for the ad ancement of its interest and not to defeat or circum ent the employee=s right of security of tenure$ and -. i.0 days before the intended strike. efficiency. whether they are temporary. the law re(uires that an employer must furnish the workers sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected.0 that the employer used fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees. such as status -i. There should be a strike ote. the re(uirement of due process that the employer must comply with areH -50 * written notice should be ser ed on the employer specifying the ground or grounds for termination and gi ing to say employee reasonable opportunity within which to e#plain his side. The &C stated that the re(uirements for a alid retrenchment must be pro ed by clear and con incing e idenceH -50 that the retrenchment is reasonably necessary and likely to pre ent business losses which. I will tell the union president that these are the re(uisites that should be complied with if a strike is to be legalH The union should file a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor . that is. but substantial. which informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him.elations -assuming 24CI is in 4etro and w!at re:"ire ents. I will ad ice the <nion to file a case of unfair labor practice against 24CI since a refusal to bargain collecti ely is a <L2. seniority. and financial hardship for certain workers. 2%R% &o% 1811B!. after due hearing. casual. 69 Law . 9$PICK C$)#I9I$)S =$( A EA%I# (&9(&)C-/&)9 W!at %onditions "st . actual and real or if only e#pected. The union should also inform the Bureau about the result of the oting at least se en -. If 24CI persists in its refusal to bargain collecti ely.lo#er %an ter inate t!e ser&i%es of an e . 1777. if already incurred.. re reasonably imminent as percei ed by ob'ecti ely and in good faith by the employer$ -+0 that the employer ser ed written notice both to the employees and to the @epartment of Labor and 3mployment at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment$ -80 that the employer pays the retrenched employees separation pay e(ui alent to one month pay or at least one month pay for e ery year of ser ice.l# wit! to San Beda Colle+e of In the case of Asian Alcohol 'orporation vs% &=R'.e. or managerial employees0. 3arch 6 . D"stif# L effe%t a &alid retren%! ent . Ass" in+ t!e e$isten%e of &alid +ro"nds for dis issal.e. the union could go back to 24CI and ask it to bargain collecti ely with the <nion. age. ' "st an e .

the employer must comply with the re(uirement of procedural due processH written notice of intent to terminate stating the cause of termination$ hearing$ and notice of termination. that is.e%t to t!e %i&il s"it for da a+es. To meet the re(uirements of due process..a#. grounds ha e been established to 'ustify his termination. It is a regular court and not a Labor *rbiter that has 'urisdiction on the suit for damages.lo#ees and &isitors for a inor infra%tion s!e %o in t!e Offi%e of t!e 7resident of a "ltinational %or. should be ser ed on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstances.otion to Dis iss for la%5 of D"risdi%tion %onsiderin+ t!e e$isten%e of an e .ana+er wit!o"t de otion in ran5 or di in"tion in .Salaw v% &=R'. ALTERNATIME ANSWER? *ssuming that there is a alid ground to terminate employment.6.ariet De etrio was a %ler5*t#. 9$PICK 1<(IS#IC9I$) SU. -50 a notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought$ and -+0 subse(uent notice. E$.resident before t!e re+"lar %o"rts.0 .ariet re%ei&ed a e orand" transferrin+ !er to t!e Offi%e of t!e Heneral .ariet ref"sed to transfer. present his e idence and present the e idence presented against him. 55G &C.lo#er*e . Aer complaint for damages is against an officer of the Company based on slanderous language alleged made by the latter. .an# . the go erning statue is the Ci il Code and not the Labor Code. There is here a simple action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by the defendant. of the Labor Code readsH ### The employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of his representati e if he so desiresW. S!o"ld it be +ranted or denied.otion to Dis iss.* . it is %lai ed t!at t!e %ase s!o"ld !a&e been filed before t!e Labor Arbiter. *rt. t!e latter s!o"tin+ in&e%ti&es at !er in t!e . the re(uirements of due process shall be deemed complied with upon ser ice of a written notice to the @epartment of Labor and 3mployment at least thirty -8C0 days before the affecti ity of the termination specifying the ground or grounds for 1or termination of employment based on authori"ed causes.Danala v% &=R'. the law re(uires that an employer must furnish the workers sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected. 11A S'RA 7?9. This falls under the 'urisdiction of the ordinary courts. . &uch being the case.AR> O4 T<E RULE? . Castro-Bartolome. . if termination is the decision of the employer. which informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him . and t!erefore. The suit arises from the fact that the 2resident of the company shouted in ecti es at 4ariet @emetrio in the presence of employees and isitors. Soon t!ereafter.lain briefl#.egular courts ha e 'urisdiction o er cases arising from slanderous language uttered against an employee by an employer. One da# s!e was berated b# t!e 7resident of t!e %o .an# law#er filed a . .lo#ee relations!i.ariet was red"%ed to tears o"t of s!a e and felt so bitter abo"t t!e in%ident t!at s!e filed a %i&il %ase for da a+es a+ainst t!e %o . wit! res. -80 * written notice of termination. -4edina s.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS -+0 * hearing or conference should be held during which the employee concerned.3edina vs% 'astro-<artolome. R"le on t!e .oration.. The damages did not arise from the employer-employee relations which would not ha e placed the suit under the 'urisdiction of a Labor *rbiter. :ot only must the dismissal be for a alid or unauthori"ed cause as pro ided by law but the rudimentary re(uirements of due process I notice and hearing I must also be obser ed before an employee must be dismissed . with the assistance or counsel if the employee so desires. after due hearing.resen%e of e . 6B6 S'RA ?9. LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 <owe&er. 6 6 S'RA 81>9. +. This is a simple action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by defendant-employer . t!e %o . is gi en opportunity to respond to the charge. The 4otion to @ismiss should be denied.

awards.lo#ee of a %lient*ban5. But if there are good reasons that may 'ustifiably e#plain why there was a delay in the filing of the appeal.H The facts in the (uestion raise these issuesH 5. Star %ited its sad e$.&V 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of .lo#ees ele&ated t!e Labor ArbiterCs de%ision to t!e NLRC &ia a . The claim for damages in the case in (uestion arose from the fact that the 2resident of the Company shouted in ecti es at 4ariet @emetrio in the presence of employees and isitors for a minor infraction she committed. -a0E0. then. can . -.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR ALTERNATIME ANSWER? The 4otion to dismiss should be granted.C could dismiss outright the appeal for being filed out of time.erfe%tin+ an a. a se%"rit# +"ard. W!at are t!e iss"es' Identif# and resol&e t!e . Star %lai ed ana+e ent . awards.) T!e affe%ted e bers of t!e ran5*and*file e . filed a %o .AR> O4 T<E RULE? *rticle ++8 of the Labor Code pro ides thatH % @ecisions. 9$PICK 1<(IS#IC9I$) SU. RS added t!at .orts. awards.C to take cogni"ance of the appeal. substantial 'ustice may be the basis for the :L. or orders. Is there a alid reason for the termination of . SELECTED (006 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS A.ine National 7oli%e. or orders of the Labor *rbiter are final and e#ecutory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within 5C calendar days from the receipt of such decisions.rero+ati&e in assi+nin+ its +"ards.s#%!iatri% e&al"ation test b# .laint be dis issed. Thus. and . or orders of the Labor *rbiter are final and e#ecutory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within 5C calendar days from the receipt of such of t!e 10*da# re+le entar# .la%ed on Foff*detailG and Ffloatin+ stat"sG for 9 ont!s alread#.ort was reDe%ted b# t!e A+en%#. <a&in+ been . &<BB3&T3@ *:&93.a!"sa# . the claim is under the e#clusi e 'urisdiction of the Labor *rbiter.& claim that he was terminatedV +. or orders.etition for re&iew filed after t!e la.. It %o"ld ani. *ccording to the Labor Code -*rticle +5.ra#ed t!at RSC %o ."late tests to fa&or oT!nl# +"ards w!o t!e A+en%# wanted to retain. *rticle ++8 of the Labor Code readsH % @ecisions.edi%al Center. b"t t!e re.eal.laint for ille+al dis issal a+ainst Star Se%"rit# A+en%#.edi%al Center be%a"se it !as been d"l# a%%redited b# t!e 7!ili. claims for actual. <e alle+ed !e was %onstr"%ti&el# dis issed after ten #ears of ser&i%e to t!e a+en%#. RS said !e alread# s"b itted t!e res"lt of !is e&al"ation test b# Brent . the claim for damages could be considered as arising from employer-employee relations. awards. among others.& was placed on off detail or floating status for more than G months.edi%al Center !ad %lose ties wit! StarCs .a!"sa# ..etition o"tri+!t or a# t!e NLRC ta5e %o+ni3an%e t!ereof' The :L.) ALTERNATIME ANSWER? The :L.erien%e last #ear w!en a +"ard ran a "%5 and s!ot an e . !e %lai ed t!e A+en%# D"st reall# wanted to +et rid of !i be%a"se it re:"ired !i to ta5e a ne"ro*. 9hen .oli%# of relian%e on .C should dismiss the appeal outright because the same was filed beyond the reglementary period of appeal. the Labor *rbiter has original and e#clusi e 'urisdiction to hear and decide. moral and e#emplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations.. If the infraction has something to do with her work.a!"sa# . It is not one of t!ose d"bio"s testin+ %enters iss"in+ read#* ade re. RS.edi%al Clini% as . S!o"ld t!e NLRC dis iss t!e .eriod for .resident. Star defended its .re%ondition to a new assi+n ent.

6.B. 8. of @!L3 to the contrary notwithstanding. *:!TA3.a+e arisin+ fro a labor!ibits t!e e . !n the second issue.E0 !n the second issue. The . S!e li&es alone at !er !o"se near t!e s%!ool after !er !o"se aid left.egulations implementing the Labor Code re(uire a certification by a public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of G months e en with proper medical treatment. But the neuropsychiatric e aluation test by 4ahusay 4edical Center is not the certification re(uired for disease to be a ground for termination. In t!e afternoon. &<BB3&T3@ *:&93."lsor# arbitration in %ase of stri5e or wor5 sto. in t!e D. t!e tea%!er stated t!at t!e wor5 . that the work is not ha"ardous or deleterious to his health or morals. that he does not work between 724 and G*4 of the following day$ and pro ided. S!e +i&es !i ri%e and 7-0.& cannot be placed on %off detail) or %floating status) indefinitely.H :o. In !er defense.ules and . <nder *rt.& can be considered as terminated because he has been placed on %off detail) or %floating status) for a period which is more than G months. there is constructi e dismissal.ort ser&i%es in Ceb" and . &ec. Aer defense is not tenable.* 6+85 allows a child below 5.". -&uperstar &ecurity *gency s. no child below 5.ersons in do esti% and !o"se!old ser&i%e. D<L and 4edEI %enters Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . Ele. Is !er defense tenable' Reason. B. B"lletin dail# news.lo# ent of %!ildren below 18 #ears of a+e.ils. This is a law appro ed only on Duly +7.* . &<BB3&T3@ *:&93. If it lasts for more than G months. !. 8. and s!e in&o5ed t!e e$%e. the pro isions of the alleged @.& shall be deemed to ha e been constructi ely dismissed thus entitling him to separation benefits. 57E &C. there is no alid e#ercise of management prerogati e.H The issues in ol ed are as followsH 5.tion .". &tar=s claim of management prerogati e in assigning its guards cannot be e#ercised to defeat or circum ent . years of age to work for not more than +C hours a week$ pro ided that the work shall not be more than E hours at any gi en day$ pro ided further. Is there a alid e#ercise of management prerogati eV !n the first issue. . T!e s%!ool . (. .an# Lo%al fran%!ise of =olibee and Starb"%5s S! . years of age shall be employed e#cept when he works directly under the sole responsibility of his parents or guardian. . +CC8.?"s 1(*#ear old bo# w!ose . -.a.anila En%!anted Ain+do . Is there constructi e dismissalV +. which is beyond the cut-off period of the then +CCE Bar on one of !er . :L."blis!in+ %o learned abo"t it and %!ar+ed !er wit! &iolatin+ t!e law w!i%! .. fet%!in+ water and all 5inds of errands after s%!ool !o"rs.00 before t!e bo# +oes !o e at )?00 e&er# ni+!t. W!i%! of t!e followin+ a# be %onsidered a on+ ind"stries ost &ital to national interest as to be s"bDe%t of i ediate ass" . 56 of the Labor Code on minimum employable age. .tion of D"risdi%tion b# t!e Se%retar# of Labor or %ertifi%ation for %o . * mere @epartment !rder cannot pre ail o er the e#press prohibitory pro isions of the Labor Code. >:. A s. s!e lets t!e bo# do &ario"s %!ores as %leanin+.rin%i.oor fa il# %o"ld barel# afford t!e %ost of !is s%!oolin+.erfor ed b# !er . it is true that disease is a ground for termination."te' 1.&= right to security of tenure. a rob"st and . of DOLE for t!e en+a+e ent of .inster s%!ool tea%!er too5 .il is not !a3ardo"s.!ant Island and Bora%a# Resort and .2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS LABOR LAW !n the first issue.

ass" e D"risdi%tion and iss"e a TRO' Briefl# D"stif# #o"r answer.ower !ad been %"t offQ and e:"i.tion of D"risdi%tion order t!at t!e Se%retar# a# iss"e w!en a stri5e or lo%5o"t will ad&ersel# affe%t national interest. ABC filed a .H Oes.rod"%es2 wo"ld be affe%ted ad&ersel# if ABCCs o. and peaceful concerted acti ities including the right to strike in accordance with law.ended for 9o da#s. +."rs"ant to t!eir ri+!ts +"aranteed b# basi% law.erations were %losed down b# t!e stri5ers.ra%ti%esG b# t!e ana+e ent of H4I s#ste .an# . T!e leaders of t!e wal5*o"t were dis issed. &hipping and port ser &e!i%les !ad been da a+edQ t!at ele%tri% . Be%a"se of alle+ed F"nfair labor . in%l"din+ t!e ri+!t to stri5e. The assumption of 'urisdiction by the &ecretary has the effect of ending the strike.lo#ees wal5ed o"t fro t!eir Dobs and ref"sed to ret"rn to wor5 "ntil t!e ana+e ent wo"ld +rant t!eir "nion offi%ial re%o+nition and start ne+otiations wit! t!e .College of Law LAW ="stif# #o"r answer or %!oi%e. The strikers will be sub'ect to .. D.ants were s"s. 8. ABC fore%ast t!at t!e %o"ntr#Cs s". since the country needs domestic sea transport due to our topography and for the smooth flow of business and go ernment operations.rin%i. On t!e se%ond da# after t!e stri5e.l# of %!lorine for water treat ent /w!i%! t!e %o . %The &tate shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organi" ises.arti%i. they do not ha e the right to strike. t!e# %ited t!e .le of so%ial D"sti%e of wor5ers and t!e ri+!t to self*or+ani3ation and %olle%ti&e a%tion. T!e# %lai ed t!at t!e Constit"tion s!ielded t!e fro an# . a +o&ern ent*owned and %ontrolled finan%ial %or. and as such.arti%i.enalt# be%a"se t!eir wal5*o"t was a %on%erted a%tion . &<BB3&T3@ *:&93. @AL and 1ed3P centers. &<BB3&T3@ *:&93. since couriers are essential to foreign and domestic business and go ernment .osition ta5en b# t!e wal5*o"t leaders and . ent and aterials were da a+ed be%a"se ele%tri% . T!e# barri%aded %o .an# +ates and da a+ed &e!i%les enterin+ %o .eturn to 9ork !rder by the &ecretary upon his assumption of 'urisdiction. E .ants le+all# %orre%t' Reason briefl#. LBC.lo#ees of ABC de%lared a stri5e after filin+ a Noti%e of Stri5e wit! t!e DOLE. and t!e ot!er .H :o. collecti e bargaining and negotiations.etition wit! t!e DOLE Se%retar# to inter&ene t!ro"+! t!e iss"an%e of an ass" . &ec 8 of *rt PIII of the Constitution states. its e . since access to information is a re(uirement for an informed citi"enry. ABC f"rnis!ed t!e Se%retar# wit! e&iden%e to s!ow t!at %o . Co"ld t!e DOLE Se%retar# inter&ene. the &ecreatry can assume 'urisdiction o er the dispute because *BC could be considered as an industry indispensable to the national interest since it produces the country=s supply of chlorine for water treatment. Bulletin @aily :ewspaper. In ar+"in+ t!eir %ase before t!e Ci&il Ser&i%e Co ission.ower was not i ediatel# restored. Is t!e .oration. San Beda LABOR &<BB3&T3@ *:&93. San Beda Colle+e of Law 69 E.) .H Certification of labor dispute for immediate assumption of 'urisdiction by the &ecretary refers to industries indispensable to national interestH 5. They are go ernment employees.

<IT43:T is-X.3C. among which is that said strike should be alidly grounded on a -a0 deadlock in collecti e bargaining.3I4B<. *nd there is as yet no law gi ing go ernment employees the right to strike.ENTQ CONCE7T. The labor authorities must go through the 'udicial process.3 !. they cannot. paragraph -c0.& <nder the Constitution.2*I@ 133& 2!3* has the power to order refund or reimbursement of fees fraudulently or illegally collected. *ssuming that what we ha e is a originally chartered B!CC. *22.H :o.Sala$ar vs% Achacoso and 3ar(ue$9.CA *:@ &3IU<.'have$ vs% <onto-Pere$9. may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. LABOR LAW CASE DOCTRINES BOOA ONE 7OEAQ 7OWERS AND 4UNCTIONS. still no such walk-out is allowed without complying with the re(uirements of a alid strike. not being a 'udge.&343:T !1 !V3. unless such subse(uent agreement is appro ed by the 2!3* . of the Labor 3&T*1* Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . To that e#tent. or in e#cess of what is legally allowed. The &ecretary of Labor.&3*& C!:T.!V*L !1 !V3. only a 'udge may issue warrants of search and arrest. under 3o 57C and related 'urisprudence. It is statutory because the right should be in accordance with law.*CT& *n agreement that changes the employee=s pay and benefits to make them lesser than those contained in a 2!3*-appro ed contract is oid. or -b0 <L2.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS The last clause is ery clear$ the right to strike is not constitutional.*astern Assurance E Surety 'orporation vs% Secretary of =abor9% I&&<*:C3 !1 &3*. . ILL3B*L . &<BB3&T3@ *:&93. .@3. stage such walk-out which is basically a case of strike. ILLEHAL RECRUIT. 3 en if B1I was organi"ed under the Corporation Code. is declared of no force and effect . *:!TA3. *rticle 87.

causes in'ury to a third person.People vs% 'alon$o9.San 3iguel <rewery Sales vs% @ple9. including such facilities as may be reasonable and necessary to finish their chosen courses under such agreement.3L*TI!:&AI2 There is no employer-employee relationship between students on one hand. dismissal and recall of workers .-342L!O33 . colleges or uni ersities.2reat Pacific =ife Cnsurance 'orporation vs% Gudico9% T3*CA3. work super ision. The principal consideration in determining whether a workman is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the manner of doing the work. BOOA T<REE . #&=I)&#. Rule F. BOOA TWO A77RENTICES<I7 AHREE. the apprentice is not an apprentice but a regular employee . C!:C32T *n apprenticeship program needs prior appro al by the @epartment of Labor and 3mployment.+ of the Labor Code.e ised 2enal Code pro isions on estafa pro ided the elements of the crime are present . on the other.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR * person con icted for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code can be con icted for iolation of the . It is not the decisi e law in a ci il suit for damages instituted by an in'ured third person. super ision of workers. *22.ENTS? C$)C&P9.&itto *nterprises v% &=R'9. all aspects of employment.ENT 7REROHATIME. Sec% 1>9 If the student referred to in *rt. including hiring. and schools. but 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . the students are gi en real opportunities. work assignments.L .5ilamer 'hristian Cnstitute v% 'A9. The applicable law is *rticle +57C of the Ci il Code .Cmplementing Rules of <oo. working methods time. the school can be held liable. in the course of doing a task in behalf of the school. Those who belong to the second category are not regular employees for they do not ha e to de ote their time e#clusi ely to or work solely for the company since the time and the effort they spend in their work depend entirely upon their own will and initiati e .& College teachers are regular employees. working regulations. The agents who belong to the first category are regular employees. . If employed without a pre-appro ed apprenticeship program. working conditions or rest periods. where there is written agreement between them under which the former agree to work for the latter in e#change for the pri ilege to study free of charge. such as payrolls to be kept. an employer is free to regulate. CONDITIONS O4 E. processes to be followed.*:C3 *B3:T& *n insurance company may ha e two classes of agents who sell its insurance policiesH -50 salaried employees who keep definite hours and work under the control and super ision of the company$ and -+0 registered representati es who work on commission basis. The Implementing . layoff of workers and the discipline. transfer of employees. CCC. pro ided.ANAHE.ules pro ision that there is no employer-employee relation between the school and the student pertains to obser ance of labor regulations.3:TIC3&AI2 is-X. and it is not the actual e#ercise of the right by interfering with the work. place and manner of 342L!O3. tools to be used. 3#cept as limited by special laws.ENTQ C$E&(A'& I:&<.7LO>. according to his own discretion and 'udgment.

ers Assoc.idmore vs% Swift and 'o%9. and where to go fishing$ that the boat-owners do not in any way control the crew members with whom the former ha e no relationship whatsoe er$ that they simply 'oin the trip for which the pilots allow them.ers.&ational 4evIt 'ompany vs% 'CR and the &ational De"tile +or. how long. 9!.S. 17!B9% 43*L TI43 4eal time is :!T working time if the employee is completely freed from duties during his meal period e en though he remains in the workplace . 1I&A3. 9here work is continuous for se eral shifts.ers .O &O&T34 3mployer-employee relationship e#ists between the owner of the 'eepneys and the dri ers e en if the latter work under the boundary system.'iti$enIs =eague of 5ree +or.N3. :ot ha ing any interest in the business because they did not participate in the management thereof.niversity vs% Hon% Gose S% <autista. which constitutes the test .C0. relationship of lessor and lessee cannot be sustained .ENTQ -$<(S $= >$(O 9*ITI:B TI43 9aiting spent by an employee shall be considered as working time if waiting is considered an integral part of his work or if the employee is re(uired or engaged by an employer to wait . Inc. et al% vs% &=R'9% CONDITIONS O4 E. the mealtime breaks should be counted as working time for purposes of o ertime compensation .*T3 9!.IV3. without any reference to the owners of the essel$ and that they only share in their own catch produced by their own efforts I are :!T regular employees . 1ishermen who conduct fishing operations under the control and super ision of the boatowner=s operations manager are regular employees.7LO>. but upon their own olition as to when.Pajarillo vs% SSS9. :L. their ser ice as dri ers of the 'eeps being their only contribution to the business. Sept% .5eati .& 2iece-rate workers who work inside the company premises under the close super ision and control of their employers are regular employees -=abor 'ongress of the Philippines vs% &=R'9% 2iece-rate workers who work outside the company premises and are unsuper ised or whose time spent in their work cannot be reasonably ascertained are :!T regular employees -4akati Aaberdashery.Pan American +orld Airways System KPhil%L vs% Pan American *mployment Association9.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS the right to control.niversity 5aculty 'lub9% D332:3O @. and 5eati . s.43: 1ishermen who work not under the orders of the boat-owners as regards their employment$ that they go out to sea not upon directions of the boat-owners. 2R &o% =-616169% 2I3C3-. et al% vs% Abbas.& <:@3. LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . 4atters dealing on the fi#ing of the schedule of the fishing trip and the time to return to the fishing port were the prerogati e of the boat-owner .NI:B 9AIL3 &L332I:B &leeping time may be considered working time if it sub'ect to serious interruption or takes place under conditions substantially less desirable than would be likely to e#ist at the employee=s home .Ruga.nion9.Japanta v% &ational Alliance of Deachers and @ffice +or. B!<:@*.

& T! &3. :IBAT &AI1T @I113. recei ed and not by all employees.TI43 2*O The right to o ertime pay cannot be wai ed.nion vs% Hon% Amado Cnciong and Cnsular <an.'ru$ vs% Mee Sing9% 9*IV3. Inc on the Juer! a.TI43 2*O B*&3@ !: B*&IC 2*O San Beda Colle+e of In the computation of o ertime pay. days ser ice incenti e lea e with pay.College of Law LAW !: C*LL San Beda LABOR *n employee who is re(uired to remain on call on the employer=s premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effecti ely for his own purposes is working while %on call). 69 Law . speak of the number of months in a year for entitlement to said benefit.TI43 2*O 9ai er may be permitted when it is in consideration of benefits and pri ileges which may be more than what will accrue to the employee in o ertime pay . The latter is payment for work done during the night while the other is payment for the e#cess of the regular eight-hour work . of Asia and America9% 3:TITL343:T !1 2*. not regularly. of Asia and America *mployees . The time he stays in the place of work is considered hours worked . premium pay for work done on &undays.nion9. It is argued that that laborer can rest during the day after ha ing worked the whole night.3:TI*L *:@ !V3. et al%9.TI43 2*O The receipt of o ertime pay will not preclude the right to night differential pay. et al%9% !V3.3eralco +or.N3. The Labor Code clearly states that e ery worker shall be paid his or her regular holiday pay . CONDITIONS O4 E. Advisor! $pinion to Philippine Inte0rated &4porters.&aric vs% &aric +or. hence the same cannot be wai ed. But can the repose by day produce to the human body the same complete recuperati e effects which only the natural rest at night can gi e himV It is belie ed that since time immemorial the uni ersal rule is that a man works at night due to some dri ing necessity rather than for reasons of con enience . The right is intended for the benefit of the laborers and employees.3ercury 4rug co%.ers .Cnsular <an. of the Labor Code and its implementing rules. The reason is that the pro isions of *rticle 6.7LO>. should not be added to the basic pay. Cnc% vs% &ardo 4ayao.ers .ENTQ -$%I#AL PAL A)# S&(EIC& I)C&)9IE& %&AE&S 3:TITL343:T !1 4!:TALO-2*I@ 342L!O33& T! A!LI@*O 2*O 4onthly-paid employees are not e#cluded from the benefits of holiday pay. !V3. C!:T.3:TI*L *dditional compensation for nighttime work is founded on public policy.nion vs% 3anila *lectric 'ompany.VIC3 I:C3:TIV3 L3*V3 ?ureau o" >or@in0 Conditions.&ational =abor .time >or@ers 2art-time workers are entitled to the full benefit of the yearly . !1 !V3. *ny stipulation in the contract that the laborer shall work beyond the regular 7 hours without additional compensation for the e#tra hours is contrary to law and null and oid .*CT<*L 9!.T-TI43 !.nion vs% 2otamco =umber 'o% vs% 'CR9% :IBAT &AI1T @I113.out Conditions o" &mplo!ment o" Part. holidays and at night and other fringe benefits which are occasionally.

nion9. Commissions are gi en for e#tra efforts e#erted in consummating sales or other related transactions.'ebu Cnstitute of Dechnology vs% @ple9. as such.5ive G Da"i. et al% vs% &=R'9% >A'&SQ 7RO<IBITION REHARDINH WAHES 9*B3 @3@<CTI!:&H &3TTI:B !11 !1 4!:3O CL*I4 !1 342L!O33 *B*I:&T :!:2*O43:T !1 &T!CN &<B&C.<oie-Da. CONDITIONS O4 E. by itself. that is to include allowances in the concept of salaries or wages .ENT O4 WAHES :!:-L*9O3. in cases where the right of the workers or his union to check-off has been recogni"ed by the employer or authori"ed in writing by the indi idual Red Notes in Labor Law 68 .eda 'hemicals. Cnc% vs% &=R' and Philippine 4uplicators *mployees .2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Conse(uently.:3O=& 133& *lthough the law allows.TI!:*T3 58th 4!:TA 2*O *n employee who has resigned or whose ser ices were terminated at anytime before the time of payment of the 58th month pay is entitled to 58th month pay in proportion to the length of time he worked during the year. This relationship cannot e#ist unless the client=s representati e is a lawyer . were properly included in the term %basic salary) for purposes of computing their 58 th month pay . they may properly be considered part of the basic salary. and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance$ -b0 for union dues. only in three instances. appearing or defending a party litigant in a labor case does not. >A'&SM 7A>. reckoned from the time he started working during the calendar year up to the time of his resignation or termination from the ser ice .!2!. part-time employees are also entitled to the full fi e days ser ice incenti e lea e benefit and not on a pro-rata basis. Cnc% vs% 4ionisio 4ela Serna9% LABOR LAW 2. The &upreme Court will not adopt a different meaning of the terms %salaries or wages) to mean the opposite. These commissions are not o ertime payments.elations Commission or any Labor *rbiter. They are.Cnternational School of Speech vs% &=R' and 3' 3amuyac9. which the Court has made clear do not form part of the %basic salary) . Their act of representing.7LO>. the salesman=s commissions. comprising a predetermined percent of the selling price of the goods sold by each salesman. In remunerati e schemes consisting of a fi#ed or guaranteed wage plus commission. 3ntitlement to attorney=s fees presupposes the e#istence of attorney-client relationship. non-lawyers to appear before the :ational Labor . howe er. B*&IC 9*B3 *:@ C!44I&&I!:& If the commissions are in a wage-or sales. the fi#ed or guaranteed wage is patently the %basic salary) for this is what the employee recei es for a standard work period. Thus.ENTQ WAHES &*L*. this does not mean that they are entitled to attorney=s fees. to witH -a0 in cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer.percentage type. additional pay.Philippine 4uplicators. nor profitsharing payments nor any other fringe benefit. confer upon them legal right to claim for attorney=s fees. under certain circumstances.O 3PCL<@3& *LL!9*:C3& 3#isting laws e#clude allowances from the basic salary or wage in the computation of the amount of retirement and other benefits payable to an employee.& :!T 3:TITL3@ T! *TT!.I2TI!:& *rticle 558 of the Labor Code allows such a deduction from the wages of the employees by the employer.

et a%9. A!<&3A3L23.*TI!: Law San Beda Colle+e of In its broad sense. there is no legal re(uirement that. the proceeding is referred to as compulsory arbitration. or it should ha e categorically e#pressed so.Philippine Airlines. The criterion is the personal comfort and en'oyment of the family of the employer in the home of said employer. like the merger of two companies -with differing classifications of employees and different wage rates0 where the sur i ing company absorbs all the employees of the dissol ed corporation.BIT. In other words. The Court summari"es the principles relating to wage distortion. BOOA 4IME 7OWERS AND DUTIESQ 1<(IS#IC9I$) $= 9-& %A?$( A(?I9&(S A)# 9-& C$//ISSI$) 43*:I:B !1 C!42<L&!. Cnc% vs% &=R'9. whether it is a corporation or a single proprietorship engaged in business or industry or any other agricultural or similar pursuit.TI!: San Beda LABOR worker concerned$ and -c0 in cases where the employer is authori"ed by law or regulations issued by the &ecretary of Labor .Apodaca vs% &=R'. This classification is reflected in a differing wage rate for each of the e#isting classes of employees.7LO>EES &TI2<L*TI!: *B*I:&T 4*. the gap which had pre iously or historically e#isted be restored in precisely the same amount. >$(OI)' C$)#I9I$)SQ S7ECIAL HROU7 O4 E. 9hen the consent of one of the parties is enforced by statutory pro isions.&ational 5ederation of =abor vs% &=R'9. that speaks of nondiscrimination on the employment of women . is reflected in the whole te#t and supported by *rticle 58. they are employees of the company or employer in the business concerned entitled to the pri ileges of a regular employee .'laudine de 'astro Jialcita.Ape" 3ining 'o%. (d) The reestablishment of a significant difference in wage rates may be the result of resort to grie ance procedures or collecti e negotiations . compulsory arbitration is the process of settlement of labor disputes by a go ernment agency which has the authority to in estigate and to make an award which is binding on all parties .. 9hile the nature of work of a househelper. In such instances.College of Law LAW 9*B3 @I&T!. 7OWERS AND DUTIESQ P$>&(S $= 9-& C$//ISSI$) C!:T342T 2!93. in the rectification of that distortion by read'ustment of the wage rates of the differing classes of employees. Cnc% vs% &=R'9. be it on special or ordinary occupations. namelyH -a0 The concept of wage distortion assumes an e#isting grouping or classification of employees which establishes distinctions among such employees on some rele ant or legitimate basis. There are.O *.I*B3 -*rticle 58G0 *rticle 58G is not intended to apply only to women employed in ordinary occupations. In labor cases. -c0 &hould a wage distortion e#ist. howe er. ser ice is being rendered in the staff houses or within the premises of the business of the employer. domestic ser ant or laundry woman in a home or in a company staff house may be similar in nature. correction of a wage distortion may be done by reestablishing a substantial or significant gap -as distinguished from the historical gap0 between the wage rates of the differing classes of employees. arbitration is the reference of a dispute to an impartial third person. 69 . the difference in their circumstances is that in the former instance they are actually ser ing the family while in the latter case. chosen by the parties or appointed by statutory authority to hear and decide the case in contro ersy. -b0 9age distortions ha e often been the result of go ernment-decreed increases in minimum wages. The sweeping intendment of the law. other causes of wage distortions. et al% vs% PA=9.

The obligation to pay the attorney=s fees belongs to the union and cannot be shunted to the workers as their responsibility .ule P of the :ew . 2.& :on-lawyers may appear before the commission or labor arbiter onlyH /a2 if they represent themsel es$ /b2 if they represent their organi"ation or members thereof$ or /%2 if he is a dulyaccredited member of the legal aid office duly recogni"ed by the department of 'ustice or integrated bar of the 2hilippines in case referred thereto by the latter.Principe vs% Philippine-Singapore Dransport Services. Cnc%.3:@3.Reahs 'orporation vs% &=R'9. +++-b0 prohibits attorney=s fees.5 of the 566. The :L.4C'ADA It is true that a compromise agreement once appro ed by the court has the effect of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed e#cept for ices of consent and forgery.:3O=& 133& *.ules of Ci il 2rocedure. C!42. It may not be used therefore.ule .C pro ides that the Commissioner or any labor arbiter may cite any person for indirect contempt upon grounds and in the manner prescribed under &ec.!4 . +++ of the Labor Code prohibits the payment of attorneys fees only when it is effected through forced contributions from the workers from their own funds as distinguished from the union funds. *mployees .2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS The commission has the power to hold any person in contempt directly or indirectly. . *TT!.& *rt. order. negotiation fees and similar charges arising out of the conclusion of a bargaining agreement from being imposed on any indi idual union member. 133& 1!.ules of 2rocedure of the :L. Cnc%.:3O=& 133& *rt.<an.VIC3& .3343:T& *:@ R*S G. The said section pro ides that %Indirect contempt is to be punished after charge and hearing for any ### disobedience of or resistence to a lawful writ.C may disregard technical rules of procedure in order to gi e life to the constitutional mandate affording protection to labor and to conform to the need of protecting the working class whose inferiority against the employer has always been earmarked by disad antage . B3:31IT& *rt 555 of the Labor Code regulates the amount reco erable as attorney=s fees in the nature of damages sustained by and awarded to the pre ailing party. The purpose of the pro ision is to pre ent imposition on the workers of the duty to indi idually contribute their respecti e shares in the fee to be paid the attorney for his ser ices on behalf of the union in its negotiations with the management.!AIBITI!: !1 2*O43:T !1 *TT!. it does not direct the instantaneous and automatic award of attorney=s fees in such ma#imum limit . while it pro ides for the ma#imum allowable amount of attorney=s fees.Radio 'ommunication of the Philippines. et al%9. 7OWERS AND DUTIESQ APP&A(A)C&S A)# =&&S *223*. The procedures and penalties thereof are pro ided under paragraph -d0 of *rt. The appearance of labor federations and local unions as counsel in labor proceedings has been gi en legal sanction and we need only to cite *rt. 4oreo er.I&I:B 1. 8-b0. Aowe er. &ection +. +++ of the Labor Code allowing non-lawyers to represent their organi"ation or members thereof . process.O !1 9*B3& *:@ !TA3.!4I&3 *B. +57. . The LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 .Cndustrial and transport *(uipment. &3.3C!V3. as the lone standard in fi#ing the e#act amount payable to the lawyer by his client for the legal ser ices he rendered. et al% vs% &=R'9.Draders Royal <an. or 'udgment of a court ###) .9. .nion-Cndependent vs% &=R'9.*:C3 !1 :!:-L*9O3. Cnc% vs% Dhe Secretary of =abor *mployment9. of the Philippine Cslands vs% &=R'. *TT!.3@ BO <:I!: !11IC3.:3O=& 133& There are only two kinds of cases where attorney=s fees may be assessed? /12 cases arising from unlawful withholding of wages and /(2 cases arising from collecti e bargaining negotiations .

<:B*:B 2*4B*.Palacol vs% 5errer'alleja9 A77EALQ &X&C<9I$) $= #&CISI$)S. both the party and its counsel must be duly ser ed their separate copies of the order. and disregard or o errule the employer=s claim of inability to reinstate the employee. the other party could eitherH -50 enforce the compromise by a writ of e#ecution.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR collection of the special assessment partly for the payment ser ices rendered by union officers. C!@3 *rt ++G of the Labor Code grants original and e#clusi e 'urisdiction o er the conciliation and mediation of disputes. it could not be alidly le ied upon by the sheriff for the satisfaction of the 'udgment therein.3orales et al% vs% &=R'9.3343:T I& VI!L*T3@ <nder article +CE5 of the ci il code. this factor must be taken into account in the process of directing and effectuating the award of relief to the employee consistent with the 'udgment. grie ances or problems in the regional offices of the @epartment of Labor and 3mployment. or -+0 regard it as rescinded and so insist upon his original demand .TO !9:3@ !:LO BO TA3 D<@B43:T @3BT!. decision. if the third-party claim does not in ol e nor grows out of. the plain and ob ious remedy is simply the compulsion of the employer by writ of e#ecution to effect the mandated reinstatement and pay the amounts decreed in the 'udgment.'hristian =iterature 'rusade v% &=R'9.!23. within the co erage of the prohibition in the aforementioned article . BUREAU O4 LABOR RELATIONSQ 1<(IS#IC9I$) N*T*.P&@' 4oc. a labor dispute. If the property under le y does not belong to the 'udgment debtor in the :L. The remedy is certainly not the institution of a separate action. whether in the regular courts or the labor arbiter=s branch. or resolution.IT !1 3P3C<TI!: If the employer fails or is unable to comply with a final and e#ecutory 'udgment for the reinstatement of an employee.) But there is no (uestion that it is an e#action which falls within the category of a )similar charge) and therefore. :!TI1IC*TI!: In labor cases.C case.*:B*O *:@ TA3 L*B!. consultants and other may not be in the category of %attorney=s fees or negotiations fees. The remedy for refusal of the employer to reinstate employee despite se eral writs of e#ecution is not the grant of additional backwages to ser e as damages but to cite the employer in contempt .3ontoya vs% *scayo9. 3P3C<TI!: !V3. 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . It is the aid bureau and its di isions and not the barangay lupong tagapayapa which are ested by law with original and e#clusi e authority to conduct conciliation and mediation proceedings on labor contro ersies before their endorsement to the appropriate labor arbiter ad'udication .Penalosa v% )illanueva9. unlike in ordinary 'udicial proceeding where notice to counsel is deemed notice to the party .yard and *ngineering 'orp% vs% &=R'9. 3 en upon a prima facie showing of the ownership by the third-party claimant. a separate action for in'uncti e relief against such le y may be maintained in court . 2.3 T! C!42LO 9ITA * 9.!4I&3 *B. &uch recourse would iolate the well-settled principle of res judicata. It would gi e rise to multiplicity of actions which the law abhors and e#erts e ery effort to eschew . $(#&(S A)# A>A(#S 1*IL<.3AC Philippines Cnc% vs% &=R' et al%9. BUREAU O4 LABOR RELATIONSQ C$/P($/IS& A'(&&/&)9S !2TI!:& 9A3: C!42. should the party fail or refuse to comply with the terms of a compromise agreement or amicable settlement. If there be alid and unsuperable cause for such inability to reinstate.

3L*TI!:&AI2 B3T933: <:I!: *:@ IT& 434B3.Radio 'ommunications of the Philippines Cnc% vs% Sec% of =abor9.*TIV3 It is the fact of ownership of the cooperati e. e#cept for mandatory acti ities under the Code%. CA3CN-!11 *ttorney=s fees may not be checked-off or deducted from any amount due to an employee without his written consent.& !1 * C!!23. . and not the in ol ement in the management thereof.3LI31 9ITAI: TA3 <:I!: Benerally. irrespecti e of the degree of their participation I the actual management of the cooperati e. @3@<CTI!:& 1!. 9hen persons oluntarily terminate their employment relationship. assist or 'oin a labor organi"ation for the purpose of collecti e bargaining . and arises out of two factorsH one is the degree of dependence of the indi idual employee on the union organi"ation$ and the other. redress must first be sought within the union itself in accordance with its constitution and by-laws .ITO 434B3. they cannot claim that they were dismissed . 1!. pursuant to which the complaint in an unfair labor practice case had been withdrawn and dismissed.Heirs of Deodoro 'ru$ vs% 'ourt of Cndustrial Relations9.C3@ V*C*TI!: L3*V3 Red Notes in Labor Law 68 .VIC3 133 @eductions for union ser ice fee are authori"ed by law and do not re(uire indi idual checkoff authori"ations .& !1 <:I!: * compromise agreement between the union and the company. all members thereof cannot form.& The union has been e ol ed as an organi"ation of collecti e strength for the protection of labor against the un'ust e#actions of capital. <:I!: &3.)engco vs% Drajano9.3&IB:*TI!: *cceptance of a oluntary resignation is not <L2. a corollary of the first. The union to be considered but the agent for the purpose of securing for them fair and 'ust wages and good working conditions and is sub'ect to the obligation of gi ing the members as its principals all information rele ant to union and labor matters entrusted . which dis(ualifies a member from 'oining any labor organi"ation within the cooperati e. is binding upon the minority members of the union . LABOR LAW LABOR ORHANINATIONSQ (I'-9S $= %&'I9I/A9& %A?$( $('A)IPA9I$)S C!42.4ionela vs% 'ourt of Cndustrial Relations9. UN4AIR LABOR 7RACTICESQ &/P%$L&(S *CC32T*:C3 !1 4*&& . RIH<T TO SEL4*ORHANINATIONQ C$E&(A'& 342L!O33-434B3. but e(ually important is the re(uirement of fair dealing between the union and its members.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS LABOR ORHANINATIONSQ (I'-9S A)# C$)#I9I$)S $= /&/?&(S-IP :*T<.!4I&3 BI:@I:B <2!: 4I:!.*nri(ue$ vs% Jamora9. which is fiduciary in nature.3 !1 . is the comprehensi e power ested in the union with respect to the indi idual.Napisanan ng mga 3angagawa sa 3RR vs% Hernande$9. Thus.<enguet *lectric 'ooperative vs% 5errer-'alleja9.

restrain. L!CN!<T !. T!T*LITO !1 C!:@<CT @!CT. et al% vs% Dhe Cnsular =ife Assurance 'o%. 5abric @utlet9. 2aragraph d of said article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an employer to %initiate.3 <:I!: I@ .!<BA &<. but should be read in the light of the preceding and subse(uent circumstances surrounding.!<BA 3C!:!4IC I:@<C343:T& * iolation results from an employer=s announcement of benefits prior to a representation election. or coerce employees in their e#ercise of the right to self-organi"ation) is an unfair labor practice on the part of the employer.3BI&T3.3@ <nder *rt. Cnitiation of the company union idea.3 *4!<:TI:B T! <L2 The rule is that it is unlawful for the employer to threaten its employees with mo ing or shutting down the plant and conse(uent loss of employment.Dhe Cnsular =ife Assurance 'o%. This may further occur in three stylesH /12 outright formation by the employer or his representati es$ /(2 employee formation on outright demand or influence by employer$ and /-2 managerially moti ated formation by employees. being neither malicious.Philippine 2raphic Arts. does not constitute <L2 . a iolation results because the employees come under threat of economic coercion or retaliation for their union acti ities .. The letter should be interpreted according to the %totality of conduct doctrine. *mployees Association-AD. <L2 TA.!<BA VI!L3:C3 *:@ I:TI4I@*TI!: *n employer unlawfully coerced employers by directing two indi iduals to his office at gun point on the day of representation election after the indi iduals had informed the employer that they were on the premises to ote in the election and they did in fact ote .Henri$ 3fg% 'o vs% &=R<9. CL!&<.ReO Hancoc.I:3 The letter. . Cnc% vs% &=R<9. <L2 3V3: B31!. oppressi e or indicti e.Gudric 'anning 'orporation vs% Cnciong9 <L2 TA. should not be considered by themsel es alone. e#hibits * and B. +E7 of the Labor code of the 2hilippines. =td%.!<BA C!42*:O @!4I:*TI!: !1 TA3 <:I!: @omination of a labor union is usually manifested in the following formsH Law 69 San Beda Colle+e of a. as the result of their support for the union .) .&=R< vs% =ousiana 3529. dominant. including the gi ing of financial %or other support to it. %to interfere with. <L2 TA.) whereby the culpability of an employer=s remarks were to be e aluated not only on the basis of their implicit implications.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR The forced acation lea e without pay in iew of the economic crisis. =td%9. assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organi"ation. where it is intended to induce the employees to ote against the union . <L2 TA. but were to be appraised against the background of and in con'unction with collateral circumstances .Holly Hill =umber vs% &=R<9.V3ILL*:C3 9hen an employer engages in sur eillance or takes steps leading his employees to belie e it is going on.

g.&=. 5inancial support to the union. Creates harmonious relations between the employer and the employee .nion vs% Philippine American 'igar E'igarette 35g% 'o%. LABOR LAW V*LI@ITO !1 TA3 CL!&3@ &A!2 *B.3anila Hotel 'ompany vs% Pines Hotel *mployees Association9. *mployer encouragement and assistance.3343:T * closed-shop agreement is ad antageous because itK a. 2re ents nonunion workers from sharing in the benefits of the union=s acti ities without also sharing its obligations. Immediately granting he union e#clusi e recognition as a bargaining agent without determining whether the union represents the ma'ority of the employees is an illegal form of assistance amounting to unfair labor practice.B3 *n employee was held to be constructi ely discharged when she (uit her 'ob because of the employee=s discriminatory assignment re(uiring hea y lifting work which the employer knew she was physically unable to perform . The fact that a lawful cause for discharge is a ailable is not a defense where the employee is actually discharged because of his union acti ities.!<BA @I&C. and such a pro ision in a collecti e bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution . b. This takes form of soliciting membership permitting union acti ities during working time or coercing employees to 'oin the ion by threats of dismissal or demotion . it is necessary that the underlying reason for the discharge be established. <L2 TA.&=R< vs% )acuum9. 2re ents the weakening of labor organi"ations by discrimination against union members. d.!<BA C!:&T. *@V*:T*B3& *:@ @I&*@V*:T*B3& !1 CL!&3@-&A!2 *B.I4I:*TI!: 1or the purpose of determining whether or not a discharge is discriminatory. Increases the strength and bargaining power of labor organi"ations.3343:T * closed shop agreement is alid form of union security.ers .I4I:*TI!: I: &*L*.Philippine American 'igar E 'igarette 5actory +or.&=R< vs% Ace 'omb 'o%9.3anila 3andarin *mployees .nion vs% &=R'9. If the discharge is actually moti ated by lawful reason. <L2 I: * BIV3: 23. e. c. Supervisory assistance. *n employer commits unfair labor practice if he defrays the union e#penses or pays the attorney=s fees to the attorney who drafted the constitution and bylaws of the union.I!@ &A!<L@ B3 I:CL<@3@ I: &I:BL3 CA*. vs% AguinaldoIs *chague9. 3liminates the lowering of standards caused by competition with nonunion workers. 1acilitates the collection of dues and the enforcement of union rules.O *@D<&T43:T& There is unfair and un'ust discrimination in the granting of salary ad'ustments where the e idence shows that -a0 the management paid the employees of unioni"ed branch$ -b0 where the salary ad'ustments were granted to employees of one of its non-unioni"ed branches although it was losing in its operations$ and -c0 the total salary ad'ustments gi en one employee in the nonunioni"ed branch . f. Cnc%9. the fact that the employee is engaged in union acti ities at the time will not lie against the employer and pre ent him from the e#ercise of his business 'udgment to discharge an employee for cause . 3nables labor organi"ations effecti ely to enforce collecti e agreements. T3&T !1 @I&C. <L2 TA.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS b.B3 Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . c.<CTIV3 @I&CA*. d.

College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR 9hen a labor union accuses an employer of acts of unfair labor practice allegedly committed during a gi en period of time. therefore.B*I:I:B T! 2!I:T !1 I42*&&3 The (uestion as to what are mandatory and what are merely permissi e sub'ects of collecti e bargaining is of significance on the right of a party to insist on his position to the point of stalemate.4ionela vs% 'ourt of Cndustrial Relations9% COLLECTIME BARHAININH AHREE.nion vs% 'ompania 3aritima9.I&@ICTI!:*L 2.=oy vs% &=R'9. and based upon acts committed during the same period of time . the refusal to bargain iolates no rights .3anila *lectric 'o vs% Hon% Sec of =abor and 3ewa9. a %middle ground approach) instead promotes a %play safe) attitude that leads to more deadlocks than to successfully negotiated CB*s . 4erely finding the midway point between the demands of the company and the union.3C!:@ITI!:& !1 C!LL3CTIV3 B*.C. -a0 of the Labor Code .N . * party may refuse to enter into a collecti e bargaining contract unless it includes a desired pro ision as to a matter which is a mandatory sub'ect of collecti e bargaining$ but a refusal 69 .<L3& Law Company rules relating to safety and work practices come within the meaning of the phrase %other terms and conditions of employment) as used in the *ct and.ENTQ C$)C&P9 CB* @31I:3@ * collecti e bargaining agreement -CB*0. be allowed to split its cause of action and harass the employer with subse(uent charges. par. :eedless to add. upon the dismissal of the charges first preferred. the charges should include all acts of unfair labor practice committed against any and all members of the union during that period. D<. the employer is not under any legal duty to initiate contract negotiation. where there is no duty to bargain collecti ely. constitute a mandatory sub'ect of collecti e bargaining . and %splitting the difference) is a simplistic solution that fails to recogni"e that the parties may already be at the limits of the wage le els they can afford. 9*B3 *B. as used n *rt +. B*.Allied 5ree +or. including proposals for ad'usting any grie ances or (uestions under such agreement .) 9here nether party is an %employer or employee of the other no such duty would e#ist. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment. 2*. on the fear that a %&olomonic) solution cannot be a oided. +.B*I:I:B The duty to bargain collecti ely arises only between the %employer) and its %employees.4avao Cntegrated Port Stevedoring Services vs% Abar(ue$9.B*I:I:B *lthough bargaining is a mutual obligation of the parties. It may lead to the danger too that neither of the parties will engage principled bargaining$ the company may keep its low position while the union presents an artificially high position.+ of the labor code. Thus rather than encourage agreement.!*CA I: 9*B3 @I&2<T3 San Beda Colle+e of The %middle ground approach) employed by the secretary in this case which the &upreme Court does not necessarily find the best method of resol ing a wage. The mechanics of collecti e bargaining is set n motion only when the following 'urisdictional preconditions namelyH /12 possession of the status of ma'ority representation of the employees= representati e in accordance with any of the means of selection or designation pro ided for by the labor code$ /(2 proof of ma'ority representation$ and /-2 a demand to bargain under *rt.TI3& T! C!LL3CTIV3 B*. 9!.&=R< vs% 2ulf Power 'o%9.ers .3343:T$ %S@=@3@&C') *22. The union should not. refers to a contract e#ecuted upon re(uest of either the employer or the e#clusi e bargaining representati e of the employees incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages.

on the other hand. !nce it is duly entered into and signed by the parties. C3. Cnc%9.O .egulations.ENT? &XC%<SIE& ?A('AI)I)' (&P(&S&)9A9I$) LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 .=iberty 5lour 3ills *mployees vs% =iberty 5lour 3ills. B*. *B. a collecti e bargaining agreement becomes effecti e as between the parties regardless of whether the same has been certified by the BL. the parties must maintain status (uo and must continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the e#isting agreement until a new agreement is reached. COLLECTIME BARHAININH AHREE.!4 3P2I. Cnc% vs% &=R'9. . <:. *nother legal principle that should apply is that in the absence of an agreement between the parties. then.'P9. not the date they signed -3indanao Derminal vs% 'onfesor and A=. Book V of the implementing .ule 6. &IP 4!:TA& 1.egional !ffice with accompanying proof of ratification by the ma'ority of all the workers in the bargaining unit.B*I:I:B T! TA3 2!I:T !1 I42*&&3H B*@ 1*ITA ! er a non-mandatory sub'ect. In one case.ers of the Philippines vs% &=R'9.3anila *lectric 'ompany vs% Puisumbing and 3*+A9.TI1IC*TI!: !1 TA3 CB* BO TA3 B<.33@ B<T <:&IB:3@ CB* 9ITAI: &IP 4!:TA& The renegotiated CB* retroacts if the parties reached agreement within si# months from e#piry date. . the law pre ents the e#istence of a gap in the relationship between the collecti e bargaining parties. This was not done in the case at bar.ENT? 9&(/S 3113CTIVITO !1 CB* C!:CL<@3@ *1T3. The determining point is the date they agreed. 9e do not declare the CB* in alid or oid considering that the employees ha e en'oyed from it. They cannot recei e benefits under the pro isions fa orable to them and later insist that the CB* is oid simply because other pro isions turn out not to the liking of certain employees. .*TI1IC*TI!:$ 4*:@*T!. .3L*TI!:& :either is the certification of the CB* by the bureau of labor relations re(uired to put a stamp of alidity to such contract. the CB* submitted to the 4!L3 did not carry the sworn statement of the union secretary. COLLECTIME BARHAININH AHREE.*TI1I3@ B<T I42L343:T3@ CB* The parties to a collecti e agreement are re(uired to furnish copies to the appropriate . the CB* was not posted for at east fi e days in two conspicuous places n the establishment before ratification.343:T& The rules re(uire posting of the CB* in two conspicuous places for fi e days. as re(uired by section 5. to enable the workers to clearly inform themsel es of its pro isions. a party may not insist on bargaining to the point of impasse.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS to contract in good faith that the insistence on the disputed clause was not the sole cause of the failure to agree or that agreement was not reached with respect to other disputed clauses -Samahang 3anggagawa sa Dop 5orm 3anufacturing-.3T<I. attested by the union president. 4oreo er.ules and . an arbitrated CB* takes on the nature of any 'udicial or (uasi-'udicial award$ it operates and may be e#ecuted only prospecti ely unless there are legal 'ustifications for its retroacti e application .nions vs% Drajano9. In this manner.3*< !1 L*B!.Planters Products.-D.*TI!: !1 TA3 !L@ CB* In the absence of a new CB*. It is ini(uitous to recei e benefits from a CB* and later on disclaim its alidity .nited +or.&=R< vs% +oorster 4ivision of <org-+arner 'orp%9. otherwise his insistence can be construed as bargaining in bad faith . The court ruled that these re(uirements being mandatory. noncompliance there with rendered the CB ineffecti e -Associated Drade . that the CB* had been duly posted and ratified.

Considering the spin-offs. Cnc%9. et%al%9.Philippine Airlines. 3PC32TI!:& T! !:3-<:IT 2!LICO The usual e#ception. a line must be drawn between management prerogati es regarding business operations pers se and those which affect the rights of the employees. the test of grouping is mutuality or commonality of interests.aisang Supervisor ng <arbi$on. &<B&I@I*.nion-PD2+@.I:3 The desires of the employees are rele ant to the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. wages. plant unit. BL!B3 @!CT.<arbi$on Phil% )s% &ag.a.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR 342L!O33&= 2*.Cndophil De"tile 3ill +or. COLLECTIME BARHAININH AHREE.ers .*TI!:& In determining an appropriate bargaining unit. and San 3iguel 5oods.4<L*TI:B TA3 C!@3 !1 @I&CI2LI:3 Verily. management should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions or modes of action. to self-organi"ation and to enter into collecti e bargaining negotiations.2lobe 3achine E Stamping 'o9% &I:BL3 !. or a subdi ision thereof$ the recognition of these e#ceptions takes into account the policy to assure employees of the fullest freedom in e#ercising their rights. The collecti e bargaining agreement may not be interpreted as cession of employees= right to participate in the deliberation of matter which may affect their rights and the formulation of policies relati e thereto. %342L!O3. hours of work and other conditions of employment. 3agnolia 'orp%. among others which the Commission guarantees .3L*T3@ B<&I:3&& Two corporations cannot be treated as single bargaining unit e en if their businesses are related . is where the employer unit has to gi e way to the other units like the craft unit. *nd one such matter is the formulation of a code of discipline . <:IT) I& 1*V!. !therwise stated. etc vs% 'onfesor.TICI2*TI!: I: 1!. San Beda Colle+e of T9! C!42*:I3& 9ITA .3@ The proliferation of unions in an employer unit is discouraged as a matter of policy unless there are compelling reasons which would deny a certain class of employees the right to selforgani"ation for purposes of collecti e bargaining . It would then be best to ha e separate bargaining units for the different companies where the employees can bargain separately according to their needs and according to their own working condition .nion-PD2+@ vs% )oluntary Arbitrator 'alica and CndoPhil De"tile 3ills.Philtranco Service *nterprises vs% <ureau of =abor Relations9. In treating the latter.2!. the one company-one union policy must yield to the right of the employees to form unions or associations for purposes not contrary to law. The employees of different companies see the need to group themsel es together and organi"e themsel es into distincti e and different groups. Interests of employees in the different perforce differ.ENT? C&(9I=ICA9I$) &%&C9I$) 69 Law .I3& *:@ &2<:-!11 C!. Cnc% vs% &=R'9. 9hile the desires of employees with respect to their inclusion in the bargaining unit is not controlling. of course. San 3iguel 'orp%. Cnc%9.San 3iguel 'orp% *mployees . it is a factor which would be taken into consideration in reaching a decision . The employees sought to be represented by the collecti e bargaining agent must ha e substantial mutual interests in terms of employment and working conditions as e inced by the type of work they performed. The rele ancy of the wishes of the employees concerning their inclusion or e#clusion from a proposed bargaining unit is inherent in the basic right of self-organi"ation. the companies would conse(uently ha e their respecti e and distincti e concerns in terms of the nature of work.

In case where there was no certification election conducted precisely because the first petition was dismissed on the ground of a defecti e petition which did not include all the employees who should be properly included in the collecti e bargaining unit.e. cannot be granted.I!@ <:@3. +.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS LABOR LAW <L2 I: . 9hether or not the CB* was indeed surreptitiously registered is a factual matter whose determination is outside the ambit of a petition for certiorari .8 refers to modifying or renegotiating the CB* pro isions other than the representational. as alleged by the petitioner union. This GC-day period under *rt.'==' *% 2% 2ochonco +or.G The freedom period under *rts +. the certification year bar does not apply .I!@ Red Notes in Labor Law 68 .Naisahan ng 3anggagawang Pilipino vs% Drajano9. The prohibition presupposes that there was an actual conduct of election. Therefore.) while under *rts +. The ne#t election cannot be held within twel e-months. as an e#ception of the rule that the CB* cannot be modified during its lifetime. for instance.8 does not and cannot refer to the representati e status of the incumbent union since the ac(uisition or loss of representati e status of a union is to be resol ed through a certification election. The proposal period is the last GC days of the last year of the nonrepresentational pro isions$ the freedom period is the last GC days of the CB*=s fifth year .3. consent. CB* &IB:3@ B31!. @3*@L!CN B*.<L3 The %@eadlock) rule simply pro ides that a petition for certification can only be entertained if there is no pending bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration or had become the sub'ect of a alid notice of strike or lockout.32TITI!<&LO . the petition for C.8. +.. The principle purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and the management . T93LV3-4!:TA B*. et al% vs% &=R'9. the GC-days in +.nions in the Sugar Cndustry of the Philippinines-D.8 may be called %renegotiation proposal period) or simply %proposal period.33@!4 23. 9ITAI: 1. The contract bar rule applies. +. It is the employee=s right to hold a certification election. the GC-day period under +.R% Dranport 'orp% vs% =aguesma9.Pambansang Napatiran ng mga Ana.8-* and +.8-* *:@ +.33@!4 23.<L3 9A3: :!T *22LIC*BL3 The deadlock rule does not apply where there is a certification of election ordered to be conducted . i. The latter speaks of the right of the parties to propose modifications in the e#isting CB*. as already established. and not through CB* negotiation with the employer. To clarify terms. :o petition for a C3 maybe filed within one year from the date of a alid certification. @3*@L!CN .ers . Those stipulations. CB* &<. &uppose.3 !.'P vs% Drajano9.3@ 3 en if the e#isting CB* is registered surreptitiously.G is.3L*TI!: T! 3L3CTI!: It is unfair labor practice for the company to suspend the workers on the ground of %abandonment of work on the day on which the pre-election had been scheduled. 1. are called %economic) or non-political.G is different from and ought not to be mistaken for the other GC-day period mentioned in art. in practice.&ational 'ongress of . .3BI&T3.8-* and +.San 3iguel 'orporation vs% Drajano9. that an election has been held but not one of the unions won. ballots were cast and there was a counting of otes. or run-off election or from the date of oluntary recognition. the freedom period. Pawis sa 5ormey vs% Sec% of =abor9. but no e idence is presented pro ing the alleged surreptitious registration. the e#ercise of which is their sole prerogati e .nion.

Aowe er. In other words. howe er. The agreement may be continued in force if the union that negotiated it is certified as the e#clusi e bargaining representati e of the workers or may be re'ected and replaced in the e ent the ri al union emerges as the winner . 4oreo er.Philippine Association of 5ree =abor .=a Suerte 'igar and 'igarete 5actory vs% Drajano9.nions vs% 'alleja9.P=4D *mployeesI .Associated =abor . *ny stability deri ed from such contracts must be subordinated to the employees= freedom of choice because it does not establish the type of industrial peace contemplated by the law . sub'ect to the results of the certification election.3:393@ * bargaining contract which pro ides for automatic renewal in the absence of notice by one of the contracting parties to alter. CB* 9AICA I& :!T *<T!4*TIC*LLO . will usually operate as a bar to a certification election.nions vs% *strella9. precluding the commencement of negotiations by another union with the management.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR * collecti e bargaining agreement which was prematurely renewed is not a bar to the holding of a certification election. this rule does not apply where the employer filed. reasonably prior to specified date for automatic renewal. 9hen the withdrawal or retraction is made after the petition is filed. so as not to depri e the workers of the benefits of the said agreement. The reason for such distinction is that if the withdrawal or retraction is made before the filing of the petition. whereas withdrawals made after the filing of the petition are deemed in oluntary. with the Court of Industrial .*9*L !1 &IB:*T!.I:B . 3#cepted from the contract-bar rule are certain types of contracts which do not foster industrial stability.elations. it becomes apparent that such employees had not gi en consent to the filing of the petition$ hence the subscription re(uirement has not been met. In the meantime.I3& It appearing indisputably that the 8+5 union members had withdrawn their support to the petition.nion vs% P=4D 'ompany and 5ree Delephone +or. CB* TA*T @!3& :!T 1!&T3. It would be otherwise if the withdrawal was made after the filing of the petition for it would then be presumed that the withdrawal was not free and oluntary. a petition or manifestation of its intention to terminate such contract if and when it is found that the collecti e bargaining agency with whom the employer had the contract no longer represented the ma'ority of the employer=s workers . the employees who are supporting the petition become known to the opposite party since their names are attached to the petition at the time of filing. The presumption would arise that the withdrawal was procured through duress.32. &T*BILITO Basic to the contract bar rule is the proposition that the delay of the right to select representati es can be 'ustified only where stability is deemed paramount. it shall be recogni"ed and gi en effect on a temporary basis. 3113CT !1 9ITA@. &uch indecent haste in renewing the CB* despite an order en'oining them from doing so is designed to frustrate the constitutional right of the employees to self-organi"ation . the said collecti e bargaining agreement cannot be deemed permanent.Associated Drade . 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . any such withdrawal or retraction shows oluntariness in the absence of proof to the contrary. it would not be une#pected that the opposite party would use foul means for the sub'ect employees to withdraw their support .ersI . such as contracts where the identity of the representati es is in doubt. Logically. Therefore. coercion or for aluable consideration. the names of employees supporting the petition are supposed to be held secret to the opposite party.nions vs% Drajano9. modify or terminate it prior to a specified period preceding the terminating date. the distinction must be that withdrawals made before the filing of the petition are presumed oluntary unless there is con incing proof to the contrary. V*LI@ITO !1 CB* &IB:3@ @<.nion9.3&3:T*TI!: @I&2<T3 9hen a collecti e bargaining agreement is entered into at the time when the petition for certification election had already been filed by a union and was then pending resolution.

!n the other hand. where properly gi en delegated power. not through collecti e bargaining . The capital in ested in machinery. sub'ect to the -prescribed0 cooling-off period and . &3C!:@ 1*CT!.&ational 5ederation of Sugar +or. :*T<. it is the legislature and.-day strike ban must both be complied with. The employer company is on the defensi e. of the Labor Code.IN3 *:@ L!CN!<T !rdinarily. which states that the %labor organi"ation designated or selected by the ma'ority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be the e#clusi e representati e of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collecti e bargaining) . the strikers by going on strike seek to interrupt and paraly"e the business and production of the company.3T<I.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS @I&4I&&3@ 342L!O33& In 2hilippine 'urisprudence it is now settled that employees who ha e been improperly laid off but who ha e a present.:43:T 342L!O43:T In go ernment employment.) the union shall furnish the 4!L3 with results of the oting %at least se en days before the intended strike.*L . L3B*LITO !1 &T.Social Security System *mployees Association vs% 'ourt of Appeals9.343:T& 9hen the law says %the labor union may strike) should the dispute %remain unsettled until the lapse of the re(uisite number of days -cooling-off period0 from the mandatory filing of the notice.. the mandatory character of strike ban after the report on the strike I ote is manifest in the pro ision that %e ery case.Philippine 'an 'ompany vs% 'ourt of Cndustrial Relations and =iberal =abor .!B*TI!:*. the o erheard e#penses consisting of the salaries of its officials. factory and other properties connected with the business would be unproducti e during a strike or stoppage of the business. Cnc% vs% Dorres9% 2. e en disaster. T3. Thus. much less paraly"ed. a strike is a coerci e acti ity resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands. Nnowing this. &imilarly. the administrati e heads of go ernment. STRIAES AND LOCAOUTSQ C$)C&P9 !BD3CTIV3 !1 &T. rules. *nd this is effected through statutes or administrati e circulars.nion9. Because of the threat or danger of loss to the company.Airtime Specialists.O 342L!O33& In certification election all rank-and-file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to ote. including real estate ta#es and licenses fees continue. and to repeat. are eligible to ote in certification elections. whereby the case of illegal dismissal andQor unfair labor practice is filed.Phil% 5ruits and )egetables Cndustries.Sta% 3esa Slipways *ngineering 'o% vs% 'CR9.IN3H 2. 'ust so it can maintain the continuity of its production . although the labor union may take a strike ote and report the same within the statutory cooling-off period .ers vs% @vejera9.!C3@<. It almost in ariably wants the strike stopped and the strikers go back to work so as to resume and continue production. if the dismissal is under (uestion. Cnc% vs% 4irector of =abor Relations9. as in the case now at bar. and regulations.IN3 :!T @323:@3:T <2!: *BILITO !1 4*:*B343:T LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 . The idea behind a strike is that a company engaged in a profitable business cannot afford to ha e its production or acti ities interrupted. it does not infre(uently gi e in to the demands of the strikers. This principle is stated in *rticle +.4& *:@ C!:@ITI!:& !1 B!V3. I: L3B*LITO !1 &T.3 !1 L!CN!<T Lockout means the temporary refusal of any employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute$ an employer=s act e#cluding employees who are union members from his plant . which fi# the terms and conditions of employment.) the unmistakable implication is that the union may not strike before the lapse of the cooling-off period. unabandoned right to an e#pectation of reemployment. *ny interruption or stoppage of production spells loss. the employees concerned could sill (ualify to ote in the elections .

&uch right properly belongs to the union that commands the ma'ority. a strike by a minority union t compel an employer to bargain with it is unlawful.) *fter a union has been certified as the bargaining representati e.3T<. The ability of the Company to grant said demands is one thing. Con ersely. :either can it picket to compel bargaining. * minority union cannot demand collecti e bargaining with the employer. 2. %To allow said union to continue picketing for the purpose of drawing the employer to collecti e bargaining table would ob iously be to disregard the results of the consent election.nion v% &orton and Harrison 'o%9. and the circumstances warranted such belief in good faith.*CTIC3& <nion busting.IN3 !V3.Jamboanga +ood Products.College of Law LAW T! B.*CTIC3 &T. is certified as the e#clusi e bargaining representati e. vs% &=R'9. when the strike is declared in protest of unfair labor practice which is found to ha e been actually committed$ and 2.*CTIC3 *CT @3&2IT3 * &@-SDRCN*/&@-=@'N@. The return-to-work order should benefit not only those workers who comply with it and regardless of the outcome of the compulsory arbitration proceedings. when a strike is declared in protest of what the union belie ed to be unfair labor practices committed by management.'entral )egetable @il 3anufacturing vs% Philippine @il Cndustry +or. any other union who participated in the election thereby becomes a minority union. it must come to a halt. 9hen a union. :o labor dispute can e#ist between a minority union and an employer in such a case .ITO <:I!: &T. In other words. those workers who refuse to obey said returnto-work order and instead wage a strike are not entitled to be paid for work not done or to reinstatement to the positions they ha e abandoned by their refusal to return thereto as ordered . hence a alid ground for the declaration of strike .IN3 *B*I:&T 342L!O33=& <:1*I. the right to be the e#clusi e representati e of all the employees in an appropriate collecti e bargaining unit is ested in the labor union %designated or selected) for such purpose %by the ma'ority of the employees) in the unit concerned. L*B!. T3&T& I: @3T3. &T. but the fact should not make said demands and the conse(uent strike illegal. after winning in an election. are entitled to be paid for the work they ha e actually performed. Cnc% vs% 'CR9. L*B!. Cnc%. !b'ecti ely.:-T!-9!.nited RestaurorIs *mployees and =abor .N-!. 4I:!.IN3 There are two tests in determining the e#istence of an unfair labor practice strikeH 5. constitutes an unfair labor practice act. 2. 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . and the right of the laborers to make said demands is another thing. 2. L*B!.D PR@)CSC@& I: TA3 CB* * no-strike prohibition in a collecti e bargaining agreement is applicable only to economic strikes.4I:I:B TA3 3PI&T3:C3 !1 *: <:1*I. To further permit the union=s picketing acti ities would be to flaunt at the will of the ma'ority. although found subse(uently as not committed . &T. the defeated union cannot lawfully undertake a strike against the employer$ if one is being done.nion9.ers . &ub'ecti ely. *: <:1*I. 4oreo er.IN3 By law. <L2 strike is not co ered and workers may go on strike based on <L2 despite the no-strike pro ision . The latter should be kept in iolate. There are ade(uate instrumentalities which may be resorted to in case of e#cesses .Philippine 3etal 5oundaries.. @31I*:C3 !1 .@3.*:T @34*:@& San Beda LABOR The demands that ga e rise to the strike may not properly be granted under the circumstances of this case.nion v% Dorres and 4elta 4evelopment9.&orton and Harrison 'o% =abor . or interference with the formation of a union.Sarmiento vs% Duico9.

3:CA43:T . who thereafter yields control to the regular officers of the company .3T. 1!<. . These agreements must be strictly adhered to and respected if their ends ha e to be achie ed .!@<CTI!: !1 L*B!.3T.V*T!. &T*:@*. temporary employees0$ -b0 efficiency rating.Asiaworld Publishing House. on account of retrenchment.&AI2 The retrenchment of personnel as a conse(uence of conser atorship proceedings against an insurance company in financial difficulties is a cost-sa ing measure resorted to by the conser ator to preser e the assets of the company for the protection of not only the policyholders and creditors but also the in estors and the public in general. The law recogni"es this under *rt +78 of the Labor Code. not the li(uidation of the company in ol ed. BOOA SII TER.N Lack of work is a 'ustifiable cause for termination of employment. willing and a ailable to do the same shall ha e been recalled to work . &*VI:B @3VIC3& .2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS The union brands as illegal the stipulation in the collecti e bargaining agreements that %in case of any unfair labor practice on the part of either party.3:CA43:T 5irstly.. 2rotection to labor does not mean oppression or self-destruction of capital.&C@& vs% 'CR9. or any pre'udicial action ### until the (uestion or grie ance is resol ed by the proper court if not settled through a grie ance procedure therein outlined.ersI . especially when they pro ide for conclusi e arbitration clauses.erIs .INATION O4 E. L*CN !1 9!.7LO>.etrenchment is one of the economic grounds to dismiss employees. It is resorted to by an employer primarily to a oid or minimi"e business losses. and -c0 seniority . If the loss purportedly sought to be forestalled by retrenchment is clearly shown to be insubstantial 68 .eduction of the number of workers in a company=s factory made necessary by the introduction of machinery in the manufacture of its products is 'ustified. . the losses e#pected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in e#tent.3:CA43:T *:@ C!:&3.Precision *lectronics 'orporation vs% &=R'9. the employer bears the burden to pro e his allegation of economic or business re erses. such as -a0 less preferred status -i. Cnc% vs% @ple9. The employer=s failure to pro e it necessarily means that the employee=s dismissal was not 'ustified .3T.ers . 9here the continuation of the men in ser ice is patently inimical to the interest of the employer. Conser atorship proceedings contemplate.3:CA43:TH 9A!4 T! L*O-!11 There must be fair and reasonable criteria to be used in selecting employees to be dismissed.ENTQ 1<S9 A)# A<9-$(IP&# CA<S&S I:T. Aowe er.nion vs% 'CR9.3ayon *ngineering +or.2@P-''P +or.nion vs% 3ayon *ngineering and 3achine Shop9.e. lockouts. LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law . But the court may impose the condition that the employer shall not admit any new laborer in case of a ailable work in the future before the laid-off men who are able.) The authorities are numerous which hold that strikes held in iolation of the terms contained in a collecti e bargaining agreement are illegal. there will be no strikes. but a conser ation of company assets and business during the period of stress by the commissioner of Insurance. There can be no (uestion as to the right of the manufacturer to use new labor sa ing de ices with a iew to effecting more economy and efficiency in its method of production . there is no alternati e but for the court to authori"e the employer to lay off such number of workers as the circumstances may warrant.@& !1 .2arcia vs% &=R'9.Philippine Sheet 3etal +or.3T.

/<rotherhood1 =abor . succession of employment rights and obligations occurs between the absorbing corporation and the employees of the absorbed corporation. there must be reasonably necessary and likely to effecti ely pre ent the e#pected losses. cut other costs than labor costs. decreased olume of business.ers.Sebuguero. Secondly. but certainly not the least important. three re(uirements may be seen to be established in respect of cessation of business operations of an employer company not due to business re erses. or one month pay.3obil *mployees Association and Cnter-Csland =abor @rgani$ation9. CL!&<. et al% vs% &=R'9. after all.etrenchment.!4 . alleged losses if already reali"ed.nity 3ovement of the Philippines. &imply put. The reason for re(uiring this (uantum of proof is readily apparentH any less e#acting standard of proof would render too easy the abuse of this ground for termination of ser ices of employees . or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders. reforms and collecti e bargaining as a union. There is no showing that petitioners had been remiss in their obligations and inefficient in their 'obs to warrant their separation . There should. By the fact of merger. :ot only must the absorbing corporation retain the employees. and the e#pected imminent losses sought to be forestalled. must be pro en by sufficient and con incing e idence. . in other words. namelyH a0 ser ice of written notice to the employees and to the 4!L3 at east one month before the intended date thereof$ b0 the cessation of or withdrawal from business operations must be bona fide in character$ and c0 payment to the employees of termination pay amounting to at east onehalf month pay for each year of ser ice. 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . 43. The employer should ha e taken other measures prior or parallel to retrenchment to forestall losses. the %successor employer) principle applies . as such imminence can be percei ed ob'ecti ely and n good faith by the employer. In merger. and considerable reduction on the olume of his business a right consistently recogni"ed and affirmed by this court . such as o er hiring of workers. like in sale in bad faith.*. the bona fide nature of the retrenchment would appear to be seriously in (uestion. the substantial loss apprehended must be reasonably imminent. =astly. i.3T.3 !1 B<&I:3&& <nder *rticle +7E of the Labor Code.O &A<T@!9: Temporary shutdown of one of the furnaces of a glass plant is not a good reason to terminate employees where operations continued after such repairs.edundancy e#ists where the ser ices of an employee are in the e#cess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual re(uirements of the enterprise. whiche er is higher ..B3. con ersion of the plant machinery. is used interchangeably with the term %lay-off. which is. on the other hand. Dhirdly. shortage of materials.=ope$ Sugar 'orporation vs% 5ederation of 5ree +or. industrial depression. lack of work. et al% vs% Jamora9. or dropping of a particular product line or ser ice acti ity pre iously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise. Cnc% vs% &=R'9. T342!. it is an act of the employer of dismissing employees because of losses in the operation of a business. * position is redundant where it is superfluous. a drastic recourse with serious conse(uences for the li elihood of the employees retired or otherwise laid-off. be certain degree of urgency for the retrenchment. it should likewise recogni"e the length of ser ice in the pre ious employer. and it is apparent that the closure of the company=s warehouse was merely a ploy to get rid of the employees who were then agitating the company for benefits. et al%9 . a superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors.) It is the termination of employment initiated by the employer through no fault of the employees and without pre'udice to the latter= resorted to by management during periods of business recession.5ilipinas Port Services. or of automation.3:CA43:T .3@<:@*:CO @I&TI:B<I&A3@ 1.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR and inconse(uential in character. or seasonal fluctuations.e.

&uch consultation or consent is not substitute for actual obser ance of those rights of the employee. In estigation and hearing need not be done by the employer. I:1L*TI!: . @I&3*&3 * medical certificate issued by the company=s own physician. The rights of an employee whose ser ices are sought to be terminated to be informed beforehand of his proposed dismissal -or suspension0 as well as of the reasons therefore.egarding the argument that the inflation that has super ened 'ustifies the imposition of interest.3L*TI!:& 2. are rights personal to the 'orporation vs% &=R' and R%=% Salac9. 2. the Court has held that the effects of e#traordinary inflation are not to be applied without an agreement between the parties and without an official declaration thereof by competent authorities .*I:3@ . and not to apprise the petitioner of the causes of is desired dismissal.3TI.&orman de )era vs% &=R' and <an. and it certainly does not consist of an in(uiry conducted merely for the purpose of filing a criminal case against another person . LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law B*CN9*B3& <2 T! . et al% vs% &=R'9. of the Philippine Cslands9. after hearing.IU3@ C*<&3& In employment termination due to authori"ed causes. but the one-month ad ance notices to the affected employee and to the @!L3 must be complied with.=antion. if he chooses. Likewise. but the union cannot wai e them for him . is not certificate by %competent public health authority) . the court will not insist on reinstatement and e en the backwages will not e#tend beyond the employee=s retirement date . the written charge. and to be afforded an ade(uate opportunity to defend himself from the charges le eled against him.*(uitable <an.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS *IL43:T !.'ebu Royal Plant KSan 3iguel 'orporationL vs% 4eputy 3inister of =abor9.'entury De"tile 3ills. the subse(uent inter iew is not the %ample opportunity to be heard) contemplated by law.32L*C3 %T9!-:!TIC3 .3T<I. if. *mple opportunity to be heard is especially accorded to the employee sought to be dismissed after he is informed of the charges against him in order to gi e him an opportunity to refute the accusations le eled against him. et% al%9. and.!C3&& The notice of pre enti e suspension cannot be considered ade(uate notice since the ob'ecti es of the petitioner=s pre enti e suspension. otherwise the termination is illegal . were merely to ascertain the e#tent of the loss to the bank and to pinpoint responsibility of the arties in ol ed. dismissal is indeed warranted.343:T) !1 @<3 2.+ittshire 5ile 'o% vs% &=R'9. Those rights are not satisfied by the employer=s obtaining the consent of or consulting with the labor union.3V3:TIV3 &<&23:&I!: *:@ I:V3&TIB*TI!: @! :!T . The employee can wai e those rights.I:CI2L3 68 . the due process re(uirement is not completely done away with. The employer is mandated to furnish the employee sought to be dismissed two notices. as stated in the notice.month pay mandated by the law . @<3 2. Cnc% vs% &=R'. I:&<11ICI3:T :!TIC3H C!:&<LT*TI!: 9ITA <:I!: The employer=s %prior consultation) with the union with which the employee is affiliated is legally insufficient. *22LIC*BILITO !1 TA3 &T.343:T *B3 !:LO If the ordered reinstatement is no longer feasible because he employee has reached retirement age. but also the regular allowances that he had been recei ing such as the emergency li ing allowances and the 58th. B*&I& !1 C!42<T*TI!: !1 B*CN9*B3& The base figure to be used in the computation of backwages due to the employee should include not 'ust the basic salary.Paramount )inyl Product 'orporation vs% &=R'9.!C3&& I: *<TA!.

for the employee simply to recei e separation pay.3I:&T*T343:T &A!<L@ A*V3 B33: !.BIT3. of the Philippine Cslands9.3&IB:*TI!: 2*O The general rule is that an employee who oluntarily resigns from employment is not entitled to separation pay.Suario vs% <an.esignation is the oluntary act of an employee who %finds himself is a situation where he belie es that personal reason cannot be sacrificed in fa or of the e#igency of the ser ice. These are reliefs e#plicitly prescribed by the labor code.3@ BO L*B!. . . the :L. unless there is a stipulation for payment in the employment contract or Collecti e Bargaining *greement.7LO>.ENT? ?L &/P%$L&& . &uch an award cannot be 'ustified solely upon the premise -otherwise sufficient for redress under the Labor Code0 that the employer fired his employee without 'ust cause or due process . not enough that such in'uries ha e arisen.C cannot award backwages for the period when the appeal was pending at the :L.3&IB:*TI!: :!TIC3 San Beda Colle+e of .@3. @*4*B3& If the e idence adduced by the employee before the Labor *rbiter should establish that the employer did indeed terminate the employee=s ser ices without 'ust cause or without according him due process. then he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment) The employer has no control o er resignations and so the notification re(uirement was de ised in order to insure that no disruption of work would be in ol ed by reason of the resignation.C. or e#ceptionally. once accepted and being the sole act of the employee may not be withdrawn without the consent of the employer . There being no specific order of reinstatement and the order being for complainant=s separation.esignation. or whose differences with their employer are of such nature or degree as to preclude reinstatement .Dravelaire E Dours 'orp% vs% &% 3edelyn9. wounded feelings and social humiliation. the Labor *rbiter=s 'udgment shall be for the employer to reinstate the employee and him backwages. there can be no basis for the award of salariesQ backwages during the pendency of appeal . 4!. It is essential that they ha e sprung from a wrongful act or omission of the defendant which was the pro#imate cause thereof . TER. . It is howe er. it is separate and distinct relief gi en to an illegally dismissed employee.Suario vs% <PC9. Cnc% vs% &=R'9. 69 Law .*L @*4*B3& 4oral damages may be awarded to compensate one for di erse in'uries such as mental anguish.5ilfle" Cndustrial and 352% 'orp vs% &=R'9.INATION O4 E.Cntertrod 3aritime.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR The rule is that %strained relations) may be in oked only against employees whose positions demand trust and confidence. If the labor arbiter has not ordered reinstatement of the employee. or payment of the amount is sanctioned by established employer practice or policy . But any award of moral damages by the Labor *rbiter ob iously cannot be based on the labor code but would be grounded on the Ci il Code. *.3aranaw Hotels vs% 'A9.3&IB:*TI!: *:@ . *n order for reinstatement must be specifically declared and cannot be presumed$ like backwages. besmirched reputation.

6BB>9 +. It is not to prohibit legislation which is limited to the ob'ect to which it is directed and by the territory in which it is to operate.enal . Is e&er# %ontro&ers# or one# %lai b# an e . Does t!e . but merely all persons be treated under like conditions both as to pri ileges conferred and liabilities of RA @06( &iolate t!e e:"al . * money claim by a worker against the employer or ice ersa is within the e#clusi e 'urisdiction of the labor arbiter only if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relation.lo#er or &i%e &ersa wit!in t!e e$%l"si&e D"risdi%tion of t!e labor arbiter' :o.*F*'% S*'R*DARM )S% 'A.lo#ee a+ainst t!e e . :ot e ery contro ersy or money claim by an employee against the meployer or ice ersa is within the e#clusi e 'urisdiction of the labor arbiter.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS LABOR LAW B*. .rote%tion %la"se of t!e Constit"tion' Red Notes in Labor Law 68 The e(ual protection clause is directed principally against undue fa or and indi idual or class pri ilege. 3ay 6 . .-TO23 T<3&TI!:& 5. It does not re(uire absolute e(uality.

by setting 'usticeable contro ersies with finality. &ettled is the rule that after a 'udgemnt has become final. Was Nati&idad ille+all# dis issed so as to entitle !i to ba%5wa+es' The normal conse(uences of finding that an employee is illegally dismissed are. Gune 1A. . 1BB0. 9hile it may be true that :ati idad was detained. he was not con icted by final 'udgement in the Criminal Case. t!e ..ondent "nion filed a noti%e of stri5e based on &iolation of CBA. 6BB>9 .SDA&4AR4 'HARD*R4 <A&N *3P=@M**S .arties fro en+a+in+ in an# stri5e or lo%5o"t.D@3AS '=A. In the case at bar. T!e ne$t da#. to lessen t!e dail# finan%ial losses bein+ in%"rred b# t!e .eriod of 90 da#s.ondent "nion infor ed t!e DOLE*NCR t!at t!e "nion will %ond"%t a stri5e &ote referend" . 1BB0.laint to t!e NLRC a+ainst t!e %olle+e on a%%o"nt of !is dis issal. !owe&er.NC&2 C&D*2RAD*4 S*'.lo# ent. . t!e res. the complaint was made only after a deadlock was declared by the <nion. T!e Labor Arbiter and t!e NLRC denied Nati&idad b"t on %ertiorari. TC. the employee becomes entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and second. 69 Law . he is presumed innocent until his guilt is pro ed beyond reasonable doubt. 6BB>9 G. T!e %ri inal %ase was dis issed for la%5 of erit. Nati&idad did not.4C@ 3*3@RCA= '@==*2*.etitionerJs +eneral ana+er. .lo# ent /SOLE for bre&it#2 infor in+ !i of t!e .lo#ees on a sta++ered basis.ondent "nion entered into and si+ned a CBA %o&erin+ t!e . wit! odifi%ation. !oldin+ t!at alt!o"+! t!ere was a &alid %a"se for . On O%tober 19. Colle+e as a liaison offi%er wit! a ran5 of FAssistant Re+istrar. and a %ri inal %o . W!at is s"rfa%e bar+ainin+' It is defined as %going through the motions of negotiating) without any legal intent to reach an agreement.ealable' o&er a . 1BB1. 5ebruary 1A. the complaint will be cogni"able by the regular courts of 'ustice. C&'% )S% 'A. .*)C@DA )S% 'A. t!e SOLE iss"ed a stat"s :"o ante bell" order %ertif#in+ t!e %ase to t!e NLRC for %o . payment of backwages to the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement.lo#er %o itted UL7 "nder t!e Labor Code' San Beda Colle+e of &ubstantial e idence is re(uired to support the claim. &ubstantial e idence has been defined as such rele ant e idence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade(uate to support a conclusion. Guly ?.&C@& )S% '@&5*S@R. . W!at e&iden%e is needed to s!ow t!at e .RCDM S*R)C'*S."lsor# arbitration and enDoinin+ t!e .ondent "nion &oted to sta+e a stri5e.ondentCs dis issal. 6BB89 8.laint for ille+al dis issal.etitioner did not follow t!e .ro%ed"re for t!e ter ination of !is e . T!e e bers of t!e res.laint was filed a+ainst !i . a on+ ot!ers.ri&ate res. C&'% )S% 2A=@ S% 2ADA&. 1B@@ to ="l# B.SDA&4AR4 'HARD*R4 <A&N *3P=@M**S .lo# ent is alread# ter inated.te ber (). and nothing can be done therewith e#cept e#ecution$ otherwise.&C@& )S% '@&5*S@R. T!is ti e.College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR *bsent such link. t!e CA affir ed.oli%e a"t!orities for &iolation of !e Dan+ero"s Dr"+s A%t wit!o"t warrant. there would be no end to litigations. 1BB0. On Se. It is clear that such <L2 charge was merely an afterthought. s.etitioner. On O%tober -1.. Indeed. DOLE*NCR was t!ereafter infor ed of t!e res"lts of t!e stri5e &ote referend" . Nati&idad wor5s wit! TC. 6BB>9 E. t!e . 7etitioner and res. !e filed wit! t!e NLRC a %o . thus settling at naught the main role of courts of 'ustice. t!e res. file an# %o . which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order.e orand" to Nati&idad infor in+ !i t!at !is e .etitionerJs de%ision to retren%! 1)1 e . Nati&idad was arrested anew for &iolation of t!e sa e A%t. wrote t!e A%tin+ Se%retar# of Labor and E . The award of backwages is not conditioned on the employer=s ability or inability to pay. Colle+e sent a . no additions can be made thereto. 6BB89 . firstly. Guly 67..eriod of ="l# 10. Gune 1A.G <e was arrested b# . Is an order of e$e%"tion of a final and e$e%"tor# D"d+e ent in a labor %ase still a.

."te to t!e NLRC. Res.rotested t!e a%tions of t!e . the strike staged by them on :o ember 5G.ondent Na&arra and anot!er e . in iolation of the law. T!e followin+ da#. t!e . 566C were for the same grounds as those contained in their notice of strike on &eptember +. B# wa# of ri. T!e re ainin+ e . On No&e ber (@.ondent "nion . 7!il. The respondents cannot argue that since the notice of strike on :o ember 5G..ondents on t!e +ro"nd t!at t!e latter failed to %o ..oste.ondents were de.ondent offi%ers and e bers %o . The re(uisites for a alid strike are as followsH -a0 a notice of strike filed with the @!L3 thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in case of <L2$ -b0 strike ote appro ed by a ma'ority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose$ and -c0 notice gi en to the @!L3 of the results of the oting at least se en days before the intended strike.le ent its retren%! ent . T!e res. illegal pursuant to *rt. 566C was ises of t!e ! to ste its !"+e losses.laint wit! t!e Re+ional Arbitration Offi%e of t!e NLRC for ille+al stri5e a+ainst t!e res.ondent "nion on No&e ber 19 le+al' :!. the respondent union filed its notice of strike with the @!L3 on :o ember 5G.atriated.lo#ed in Taiwan.rior to t!e filin+ of t!e No&e ber 19. In this case. In%.te ber (). despite the issuance by the &!L3 of an assumption or certification order. T!e res. (9.ondent "nion filed on No&e ber 19. The notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to pro ide an opportunity for mediation and conciliation. a strike that is undertaken.ondent "nion to %o .e%if#in+ t!e +ro"nd or %a"se t!erefor. thus iolating *rt. staged a picket on the premises of the hotel. t!e SOLE iss"ed an order %ertif#in+ t!e labor dis.RA&D A&4 A==C*4 C&4. T!e SOLE iss"ed a ret"rn*to*wor5 order.leaded t!at t!e# be infor ed of t!e %a"se or %a"ses for t!eir re.laints. were s" oned b# t!e ana+e ent and told t!at t!e# were to be re.lo# ent of t!e offi%ers and e bers of t!e res. The re(uirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. t!e offi%ers of t!e res.l# wit! Arts.etitioner.i%5et in t!e .) . Arti%le MI of t!e CBA. 7io Habito.ondents alle+ed t!at t!e .etitioner %o itted UL7 .=*)AR4 H@D*= )S% 2*&. thus. the union officers and members are deemed to ha e lost their employment status for ha ing knowingly participated in an illegal act. In t!eir answer. 566C a status (uo ante bellum order en'oining the respondent union from intending or staging a strike. Is t!e stri5e sta+ed b# t!e as t!e . Guly !. The matters contained in the notice of strike of &eptember +. becomes a prohibited acti ity and. Conse(uently.etitioner in&o5in+ Se%tion 18. R*SDA. strike ote and strike ote report. 566C simultaneously with its notice of strike. obstr"%tin+ t!e free in+ress and e+ress t!ereto. 1BB0 noti%e of stri5e. t!e res.ondent "nion and so e e bers sta+ed a . 1BB0 anot!er noti%e of stri5e be%a"se of w!at it .ra%ti%es /UL72. /7SRI for bre&it#2. 566C and on the same day.etitioner wrote t!e SOLE of its de%ision to i .C&* =A<@R @R2A&CJADC@& @5 +@RN*RS C& H@D*=. 6BB89 "nder Arts.lo# ent of 16@ e . (9.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS T!e . as t!e noti%e filed b# t!e "nion on Se. t!e# bro"+!t t!eir attention to t!e ana+er w!o told t!e to for+et abo"t it and refrain to air t!eir %o .SDRC*S. @espite the &!L3 order. +GE of the Labor Code. as amended.etitionerJs %ontin"in+ "nfair labor .and (96 of t!e Labor Code.and (96 of t!e Labor Code. * strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike will render the re(uisite periods nugatory. E . Res.atriation.lo#ees. 1BB0 was s"ffi%ient %o . t!e res.lo# Ser&i%es and Reso"r%es. S"bse:"entl#. 566C which complied with the re(uirements of the law on the cooling-off period. <en%e.etitioner ter inated t!e e . 4oreo er. 7etitioner !owe&er filed a %o .lied.etitioner ter inated t!e e . . +GE-a0 of the Labor Code. The re(uisite se en-day period is intended to gi e the @!L3 an opportunity to erify whether the pro'ected strike really carries the appro al of the ma'ority of the union members. the respondent union ne ertheless staged a strike on :o ember 5G.l# wit! t!e re:"ire ents . w!i%! t!e res.ondent "nion.2RA&4 <@.lo# ent in Taiwan wit! . wit!o"t s.ondents a. W!en t!e# en%o"ntered .lian%e wit! t!e law. T!e# . On t!e sa e da#.lo#ees were also infor ed t!at it will %lose in si$ ont!s. which pro ides that % # # # :o strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of 'urisdiction by the 2resident or the &ecretary or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or oluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases in ol ing the same grounds for the strike or lockout. strike ban. as amended. t!ere was no need for t!e res.roble s.lo#ee. 566C had already been taken cogni"ance of by the &!L3 when he issued on !ctober 85. 1BB0.lied for e . b"t LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 .

= *pparently.lo#ed &ario"s e . alid and legal grounds. (issatisfied with this e%planation the petitioner considered the private respondents" refusal as insubordination and willful disobedience to a lawful order) hence the private respondents were dismissed from wor&. After t!e ne+otiations.etitioners ille+all# dis issed w!en t!e# re. the 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of . April 1 . as an offer in ol ing a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay. the respecti e transfers of the pri ate respondents were in fact promotions. The private respondents re!ected the petitioner"s offer. is Sthe ad ancement from one position to another with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authori"ed by law. 9ith or without a corresponding increase in salary. 7ri&ate res.atriated b# t!eir Taiwan e . unreasonable or unlikely. 'n their respective replies to the petitioner"s letters the private respondents e%plained that the transfers imposed by the management would cause enormous difficulties on the individual complainants.CH %2romotion.L 9e rule that the deed of release e#ecuted by respondent :a arra did not completely release the petitioner from its liability on the latterMs claim. :L.etitioner so"+!t to settle !is %o .etitioner is a do esti% %or. *s such.on res. &ubido. T!e .ro&idin+ tele+ra. Were . w!o arri&ed and es%orted t!e to t!e air.atriation. (uitclaims. 9e thus rule that the respondents were constructi ely dismissed from their employment. 1re the respective transfers of the private respondents considered promotions5 'f so is the denial of a promotion a !ust and authori6ed cause for dismissal5 Oes. Therefore. . t!e latter e$e%"ted a :"it%lai releasin+ t!e . The petitioner offered benefits/allowances to those employees who would agree to be transferred under its new program. +i&in+ t!e t!e o. following the ruling enunciated in Aomeowners &a ings and Loan *ssociation./4M. It e . 000 s"ffi%ient to %on%l"de !is wai&er of ri+!t a+ainst ille+al dis issal' Oes. a on+ w!o were .ondents.etitioner fro an# or all liabilities for !is re. filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice for and in behalf of the private respondents.PHC= *3P=@M S*R)C'*S )S% PARA3C@.ri&ate res. apply in this case.laints. T!e .etitionerJs e . Moreover the employees who would agree to the transfers would be considered promoted.! and %o "ni%ation ser&i%es t!r" its bran%!es all o&er t!e %o"ntr#.ondent b"t. wai ers or releases are looked upon with disfa or and are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffecti e to bar claims for the measure of a workerMs legal rights.T -or&ers . T!e ana+er of t!eir e .t of 7 6B.tion to %!oose t!e bran%! to w!i%! t!e# %o"ld be transferred.ondents and ot!er . The petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that respondent :a arraMs repatriation was based on a alid.ri&ate res.ort. T!ereafter.oration en+a+ed in t!e b"siness of .ondent Na&arraJs arri&al in . In order to effect a alid dismissal of an employee.etitioner. insensibility. *s a rule.ondents re%ei&ed se. t!e . its implementing rules and regulations.lo#er s" oned t!e . .College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR t!eir re:"ests were reDe%ted. t!e . .lo#ees were dire%ted to Krelo%ateK to t!eir new 7TST Bran%!es. and other laws affecting labor. It e#ists where there is cessation of work because Lcontinued employment is rendered impossible. and on their face in alid. the rule le# loci contractus -the law of the place where the contract is made0 go erns.etitioner %a e ". wit! a Relo%ation and Restr"%t"rin+ 7ro+ra . If -a0 there is clear proof that the wai er was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person$ or -b0 the terms of the settlement are unconscionable.nion/0123. as we defined in 4illares . in %onsideration t!ereof. or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it would foreclose any choice by him e#cept to forego his continued employment. *D A=. the law re(uires that there be 'ust and alid cause as pro ided in *rticle +7+ and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. #ence the petitioner sent letters to the private respondents re$uiring them to e%plain in writing why no disciplinary action should be ta&en against them for their refusal to be transferred/relocated.etitioner a+reed to .a# 76B.espondents= dismissal was not based on 'ust. t!e . U. There is constructi e dismissal if an act of clear discrimination.lo#ees. such (uitclaims must be struck down as in alid or illegal. *ubse$uently the private respondents" bargaining agent +T.arate letters fro t!e . 6BB>9 6.lo#ers' Was Na&arraCs e$e%"tion of :"it%lai and re%ei.anila. and usually accompanied by an increase in salary. Inc. legal and 'ust cause.oli%e. the Labor Code.000 to t!e said res. @ismissal may also be based on any of the authori"ed causes pro ided for in *rticles +78 and +7E of the Labor Code.

In order to effect a alid dismissal.lo#ees.laint for ille+al dis issal wit! . the labor arbiter has the authority to determine whether or not there is a necessity to conduct formal hearings in cases brought before him for ad'udication.aration .ondent filed a %o . T!e . or willful disobedience of a lawful order of the employer.ri&ate res.a# ent of ba%5wa+es. T!e .lo#ee. *ny increase in salary should only be considered incidental but ne er determinati e of whether or not a promotion is bestowed upon an employee. It is entirely within his authority to decide a labor case before him. which a person has a right to refuse.ri&ed of its ri+!t to a for al !earin+ before t!e labor arbiter rendered !er de%ision. . if he so desires$ -b0 if the employer decides to terminate the ser ices of the employee. .ort. W!en notified of t!e .a# and 1-t!* ont! . A noti%e of dis issal was addressed to t!e . the petitioner had failed to show that it had complied with the two-notice re(uirementH -a0 a written notice containing a statement of the cause for the termination to afford the employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representati e. non*..G T!e .ondentCs e .t"red.PDED )S% 'A.ri&ate res.ri&ate res.ondent.e%if#in+ t!e %!ar+e a+ainst !er. LACs fail"re to %ond"%t a !earin+ de.ondent was ille+all# dis issed and dire%ted t!e . the law re(uires that -a0 there be 'ust and alid cause as pro ided under *rticle +7+ of the Labor Code$ and -b0 the employee be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. Aence.C. a%%ordin+ to t!e labor arbiter.ondent fro !er e .ri&ate res.ri&ed t!e . 6BB89 5C.rod"%ts. t!e .ondent Torno as tri er.ri&ate res. ad ancement or reduction or a transfer that aims to Mlure the employee away from his permanent position cannot be done without the employeesM consent.2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS indispensable element for there to be a promotion is that there must be an Sad ancement from one position to another= or an upward ertical mo ement of the employeeMs rank or position.a# ent of ser&i%e in%enti&e lea&e .etitioner a. The holding of a formal hearing or trial is discretionary with the labor arbiter and is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right. So eti e t!ereafter.etitioner !ad been strained and r".ri&ate res.osable .ondent failed to a. reinstate ent %o"ld no lon+er be effe%ted. t!e .etitioner to .etitionerCs de%ision. as t!e relations!i. *s such.etitioner started to re%ei&e infor ation fro t!e !ead of its . the e#ercise by the pri ate respondents of their right cannot be considered in law as insubordination.etitioner e . !er de%ision was n"ll and &oid. there was no alid cause for the pri ate respondentsM dismissal. T!e .ondent s. the employer LABOR LAW Red Notes in Labor Law 68 .lo#ed .ondent and t!e . between t!e .etitionerCs ri+!t to d"e .lo# ent. On t!e basis of a re. t!e fa%t"al basis t!ereof and t!e i .etitioner iss"ed a dis%i.etitioner de%ided to dis iss t!e . LA rendered a de%ision !oldin+ t!at t!e res.ule V of the :ew .enalties for t!e said %!ar+e if . a%%ordin+ to ot!er e ent t!at.a# a+ainst t!e . Conse:"entl#. t!e .rod"%tion de. without his consent.ondent and a %o*e .linar# a%tion for s"' Is ter ination of t!e .ISETA.ri&ate res. Does t!e absen%e of a for al !earin+ a o"nt to denial of . A++rie&ed.endin+ t!e . <owe&er.ules of 2rocedure of the :L. t!e .a# to t!e .. based on the position papers and supporting documents of the parties. alle+in+ t!at it was de.ari%ar B"an.ISETAG ite s fro t!e fa%tor#. September 67.etitioner of its &ested ri+!tQ %onse:"entl#. t!e .ondent !ad been stealin+ FAA.ra#er for reinstate ent and . B"an and t!e .ri&ate res.a# ba%5wa+es and se. The pri ate respondent was illegally dismissed. e en if merely as a result of a transfer.etitioner is a do esti% %or.a#. There is no law that compels an employee to accept a promotion for the reason that a promotion is in the nature of a gift or reward.lo# ent based on a D"st and &alid %a"se' 9e agree with the C* that the petitioner did not ha e a ested right to a formal hearing simply and merely because L* Tumanong granted its motion and set the case for hearing.ear d"rin+ t!e s%!ed"led !earin+. 2ursuant to &ection .etitioner before t!e National Ca. *n employee cannot be promoted.ri&ate res. without a trial or formal res. *s stated by the C*. were tas5ed to !andle t!e in&entor# of finis!ed . * transfer that results in promotion or demotion.ealed t!e de%ision to t!e NLRC. However.ital Re+ional Arbitration Bran%!. The re(uirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are gi en the opportunity to submit position papers wherein they are supposed to attach all the documents that would pro e their claim in case it be decided that no hearing should be conducted or was necessary.ri&ate res. .ondent indefinitel# wit!o"t .oration en+a+ed in +ar ents an"fa%t"rin+ "sin+ t!e brand na e FAA.

Ganuary 1>. stating clearly the reason therefor. .College of Law LAW San Beda LABOR must notify him in writing of the decision to dismiss him. 6BB>9 69 Law San Beda Colle+e of .SH@PP*S 3A&C=A )S% &=R'.