You are on page 1of 51


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille 2000 CASES Q: X had been working for a year as a security guard with company A., a sister company of company B. He was hired on January 1, 1 !! as he was among those absorbed by company B when it took o"er the security contracts of its sister company A. He was forced by company B to sign a new probationary contract for # mos$ and on August 1, 1 !!, his emp%oyment was terminated for a%%eged%y s%eeping on post and &uarre%ing with a co'worker. (as B a regu%ar emp%oyee and thereby i%%ega%%y dismissed) A: *es. B+s emp%oyment with company B was ,ust a continuation of his emp%oyment with company A. -he .ourt cannot sanction the practice of companies that effects the transfer of its emp%oyees to another entity whose owners are the same, in order to depri"e sub,ect emp%oyees of the benefits he is entit%ed to under the %aw. /e"erthe%ess, B attained the status of a regu%ar emp%oyee with company B upon comp%etion of his si0'month period of probation. He started working on January 12, 1 !!$ and the end of the period of probation was on Ju%y 34, 1 !!. (hen he was dismissed on August 1, he was a%ready a regu%ar emp%oyee with a security of tenure. 5ri"ate respondent+s a%%eged "io%ations were first infractions and do not amount to "a%id grounds for terminating emp%oyment. (A Prime Se !ri"# Ser$i es% In & $& NLRC% '&R& 10()20% *an!ar# 1+% 2000, Q: 6788'.9( is a union whose .BA with the company A e0pired. 8uring renegotiations, the management pane% arri"ed %ate causing the union pane% to wa%k out. -he management addressed a %etter of apo%ogy to the union and re&uested for negotiations to resume. -he union pane% did not show up despite %etters from management ad"ising the former of the .BA meetings. .onse&uent%y, the union struck. A comp%aint was fi%ed by :o%den 8onuts to dec%are the strike i%%ega%. .ounse% for the union strikers p%eaded for a compromise whereupon a 3;4 out of 3#3 members agreed to a compromise sett%ement whereby they sha%% be paid separation pay in e0change for the dismissa% of the crimina% and unfair %abor practice cases fi%ed by petitioners against them. .ou%d the union compromise or wai"e the rights to security of tenure and money c%aims of its minority members, without the %atter+s consent) A: /o. Absent a showing of the union+s specia% authority to compromise the indi"idua% c%aims of pri"ate respondents for reinstatement and backwages, there is no "a%id wai"er of the aforesaid rights. -he ,udgment of the <abor Arbiter upho%ding the dismissa% of pri"ate respondents based on the compromise agreement does not ha"e the effect of res ,udicata those who did not agree thereto since the re&uirement of identity of parties is not satisfied. A ,udgment upon a compromise agreement is conc%usi"e on%y upon parties thereto and their pri"ies. 5ri"ate respondents ha"e not wai"ed their right to security of tenure nor can they be barred from entit%ement of their indi"idua% c%aims. =ince there was no e"idence that pri"ate respondents committed any i%%ega% act, petitioner+s fai%ure to reinstate them after the sett%ement of the strike amounts to i%%ega% dismissa%. ('-lden .-n!"s% In & $& NLRC% '&R& N-s& 11)///-/0% *an!ar# 1+% 2000, Q: >nion A, of which X was a part, fi%ed with the 8?<@ a notice of strike raising charges of ><5 and i%%ega% dismissa% against .ompany A. -he <abor Arbiter ordered .ompany A to pay X separation pay of A month pay for e"ery year of ser"ice. X fi%ed a motion for e0ecution of the decision of the <abor Arbiter. -he Behabi%itation Becei"er of .ompany A submitted a 7anifestation with 7otion, a%%eging that petitioner was not yet in a position to comp%y with the directi"e of the <abor Arbiter as it was sti%% under Behabi%itation Becei"ership by "irtue of the order of the =@.. Howe"er, the <abor Arbiter sti%% granted the motion for e0ecution. .ompany A contends that the /<B. shou%d ha"e denied the order of the <A for the immediate payment of separation pay because of the order of the =@. suspending a%% c%aims against petitioner pending before any court, tribuna% or body. .an the order of the =@. stay the e0ecution of ,udgment against petitioner) A: /o. A%though a stay of e0ecution may be warranted by the fact that a petitioner corporation has been p%aced under rehabi%itation recei"ership, the =@. a%ready issued an order appro"ing the rehabi%itation p%an of petitioner and p%acing it under %i&uidation pursuant to 58 23'A. =ince recei"ership proceedings ha"e ceased and petitioner+s rehabi%itation recei"er and %i&uidator has been gi"en the imprimatur to proceed with corporate %i&uidation, the cited order of the =@. has been rendered functus oficio. 5etitioner+s monetary ob%igation to pri"ate respondent is %ong

SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille o"erdue and thus cannot de%ay the satisfaction of pri"ate respondent+s c%aim. Howe"er, due to e"ents subse&uent to the fi%ing of this petition, pri"ate respondent must present its c%aim with the rehabi%itation recei"er and %i&uidator in the =@., sub,ect to the ru%es on preference of credits. (Alemar1s Si2al 3 S-ns% In & $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 114(/1% *an!ar# 1+% 2000, Q: X was emp%oyed as a &ua%ity contro% inspector with the duty of inspecting <5B cy%inders for any possib%e defects. He was dismissed when he was a%%eged%y caught by petitioner+s company 5resident for s%eeping on the ,ob, thereby "io%ating .ompany Bu%e 1;'b. He was asked to e0p%ain why no discip%inary action shou%d be taken against him, to which he prompt%y rep%ied. /otwithstanding his rep%y, he was terminated. (as X i%%ega%%y dismissed) A: *es. 5etitioner+s c%aim that pri"ate respondent s%ept on the ,ob was not substantiated by any e"idence. Cn other cases, s%eeping on the ,ob was found as a "a%id ground for dismissa% because such cases in"o%"ed security guards whose duty necessitates that they be awake and watchfu% at a%% times, such is not the degree of discip%ine re&uired of a &ua%ity contro% inspector. (hi%e an emp%oyer is a%%owed a wide discretion in the promu%gation of company po%icies, such shou%d a%ways be fair and reasonab%e. Cn this case, the dismissa% meted out on pri"ate respondent for s%eeping on the ,ob appears to be too harsh a pena%ty. (V5 6an!7a "!rin8% In & $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 1)0+9(% *an!ar# 1+% 2000, Q: .ompany * is engaged in road construction pro,ects of the go"ernment. Ct engaged the ser"ices of certain workers to work on "arious pro,ects on different dates. =e"era% of its workers ,oined >nion A as members. >nion A fi%ed a motion for certification e%ection with the regiona% office. .ompany * opposed stating that the workers were pro,ect emp%oyees and not &ua%ified to form part of the rank and fi%e co%%ecti"e bargaining unit. <ater, .ompany * terminated the emp%oyment of the workers due to the comp%etion of its pro,ects or the e0piration of worker+s contracts. -he affected workers c%aimed they were dismissed because of their union acti"ities$ and thus staged a strike. -he strike was dec%ared i%%ega% and the workers were deemed to ha"e %ost their emp%oyment status. (ere the workers "a%id%y dismissed) A: *es. -he contracts of emp%oyment of petitioners attest to the fact that they were hired for specific pro,ects and their emp%oyment was coterminous with the comp%etion of the pro,ect for which they had been hired. A%so, they were informed in ad"ance that said pro,ect or undertaking for which they were hired wou%d end on a stated or determinab%e date. =ince the workers were pro,ect emp%oyees, their emp%oyment %ega%%y ended upon comp%etion of their respecti"e pro,ects. (Ass- ia"i-n -7 Trade Uni-ns $& A2ella% '&R& N-& 100910% *an!ar# 24% 2000& Q: .ompany 6 a%%owed the temporary transfer ho%ding of office at 6a%ibo, Ak%an. /e"erthe%ess, ma,ority of the emp%oyees continued to work at its office in <eDo Ak%an and were paid their respecti"e sa%aries. 9rom June 1 3 to 7arch 1 1, X and * reported to work at the <eDo office and were not paid their sa%aries. 9rom 7arch up to the present, they were again a%%owed to draw their sa%aries. Ct is the assertion of .ompany 6 that X and * "o%untari%y abandoned their work assignments and that they defied the %awfu% orders by the :enera% manager and thus the Board of 8irectors passed a reso%ution resisting and denying X and *+s c%aims under the princip%e of Eno work, no pay.F X and * interpose that the transfer to 6a%ibo was i%%ega%. Are X and * entit%ed to c%aim their unpaid wages from June 1 3 to 7arch 1 1) A: /o. 5etitioner was ab%e to show that pri"ate respondents did not render ser"ices during the stated period. X and * e"en admitted that they did not report at the 6a%ibo office, as <eDo remained to be their office where they continuous%y reported. Ct was not for X and * to dec%are the management+s act of transferring the office to 6a%ibo as an i%%ega% act as there was no a%%egation of proof that such was made in bad faith or with ma%ice. 5ri"ate respondents were dismissed by petitioner effecti"e January 1 3 and were accepted back, sub,ect to the condition of Eno work, no payF effecti"e 7arch 1 1 which is why they were a%%owed to draw their sa%aries again. (A:lan Ele "ri C--;era"i$e In -r;-ra"ed $& NLRC% '&R& 1214)+% *an!ar# 29% 2000, Q: A was hired by Csetann 8epartment =tore as a security checker to apprehend shop%ifters. As a cost'cutting measure, pri"ate respondent decided to phase out its security section and engage

SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille the ser"ices of an independent security agency. A was then terminated prompting him to fi%e a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. /<B. ordered petitioner to be gi"en separation pay ho%ding that the phase'out of the security section was a %egitimate business decision. Howe"er, A was denied the right to be gi"en written notice before termination of his emp%oyment. (hat is the effect of "io%ation of the notice re&uirement when termination is based on an authoriDed cause) A: -he dismissa% is ineffectua%. Cn termination of emp%oyment under Art. 3!1, the "io%ation of notice re&uirement is not a denia% of due process as the purpose is not to afford the emp%oyee an opportunity to be heard on any charge against him, for there is none. -he purpose is to gi"e him time to prepare for the e"entua% %oss of his ,ob and the 8?<@ to determine whether economic causes do e0ist ,ustifying the termination of his emp%oyment. (ith respect to Art. 3!1, the emp%oyer+s fai%ure to comp%y with the notice re&uirement does not constitute a denia% of due process but a mere fai%ure to obser"e a procedure for the termination of emp%oyment which makes the termination of emp%oyment mere%y ineffectua%. Cf the emp%oyee+s separation is without cause, instead of being gi"en separation pay, he shou%d be reinstated. Cn either case, whether he is reinstated or gi"en separation pay, he shou%d be paid fu%% backwages if he has been %aid off without written notice at %east 12 days in ad"ance. (ith respect to dismissa%s under 3!3, if he was dismissed for any of the ,ust causes in 3!3, he shou%d not be reinstated. Howe"er, he must be paid backwages from the time his emp%oyment was terminated unti% it is determined that the termination is for a ,ust cause because the fai%ure to hear him renders the termination of his emp%oyment without %ega% effect. (Serran- $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 11(040% *an!ar# 2(% 2000, Q: A was emp%oyed as EhousekeeperF with .ompany B. He a%so owned a car'for'hire which he rented to B who operated the car as a ta0i. ?ne day, B approached the front desk c%erk at petitioner+s hote% re&uesting a co%%ectib%e of 53222 be added to a certain 6orean guests, 7r. Hu+s bi%%. 7r. Hu %ater comp%ained that he was o"erbi%%ed. A e0p%ained his side being the front desk super"isor and owner of the car. @"entua%%y, .ompany B+s staff confirmed the error and refunded the amount to the 6orean. .ompany B terminated the ser"ices of A on the ground of %oss of confidence for the %atter+s ma%icious intent to defraud a guest of the hote%. (as A i%%ega%%y dismissed) A: *es. .ompany B fai%ed to pro"e by amp%e e"idence that A intended to defraud 7r. Hu. -he front desk c%erk admitted being the one responsib%e for entering the 53222 in 7r. Hu+s statement of account. A%so, B admitted approaching the front desk c%erk to demand payment of the transportation fee as he was hired by 7r. Hu+s group for two days be%ie"ing in good faith that 7r. Hu owed him 53222. As there is no "a%id and ,ust cause, he is entit%ed to reinstatement without %oss of seniority rights p%us fu%% backwages and other benefits withhe%d from him up to the time of his actua% reinstatement. (C-nd- S!i"e Cl!2 Tra$el% In & $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 129/(1% *an!ar# 20% 2000, Q: >nion A and .ompany B were faced with a bargaining dead%ock. -he union then fi%ed a notice of strike with the /.7B. <ater, the union conducted a strike "ote among its members and the resu%ts were submitted to the A%%iance of /ationa%ist and :enuine %abor ?rganiDation for submission to the /.7B, but which was not made. -he union went on strike without the report of the strike "ote submitted to the /.7B. .ompany B fi%ed a petition to dec%are the strike i%%ega% a%%eging that the union barricaded gates of .ompany B and committed acts of "io%ence, threats and coercion. -ria% on the merits was conducted wherein .ompany B presented witnesses and e"idence, >nion A did not present any witness but instead re%ied on their 7emorandum contending that respondent+s e"idence are inadmissib%e. (as the strike i%%ega%) A: *es. 9ai%ure to submit the strike "ote to the /.7B immediate%y makes the strikek i%%ega%. -he i%%ega%ity of the strike is further affirmed by the acts of "io%ence, threats and coercion committed during the strike. -he re&uirements of procedura% due process were comp%ied with as both parties were a%%owed to present their witnesses and e"idence, a%though petitioner opted instead to fi%e a memorandum. (Sama<an n8 6an88a8a=a sa 6-lde> Pr-d! "s% In & $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 11+4/(% Fe2r!ar# 1% 2000,

SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q: G was hired by B9. as sa%es representati"e. He a"ers that he was transferred by B9. to 57.C, an agency which pro"ides B9. with additiona% contractua% workers. Cn 57.C, he was reassigned to B9. as sa%es representati"e and then %ater informed by the personne% manager of B9. that his ser"ices were terminated. B9. maintains that no emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship e0isted between G and itse%f. G fi%ed comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. B9. a%%eges that 57.C is an independent contractor as the %atter is a high%y capita%iDed "enture. (as G a regu%ar emp%oyee of B9., thereby i%%ega%%y dismissed) A: *es. 57.C was a %abor'on%y contractor. A%though the /eri doctrine stated that it was enough that a contractor had substantia% capita% to show it was an independent contractor, the case of 9u,i Xero0 c%arified the doctrine stating that an independent business must undertake the performance of the contract according to its own manner and method free from the contro% of the principa%. Cn this case, 57.C did not e"en ha"e substantia% capita%iDation as on%y a sma%% amount of its authoriDed capita% stock was actua%%y paid'in. 9urthermore, 57.C did not carry on an independent business or undertake the performance of its contract according to its own manner and method nor was it engaged to perform a specific and specia% ,ob or ser"ice. Cn %abor'on%y contracting, the emp%oyees supp%ied by the contractor perform acti"ities, which are direct%y re%ated to the main business of its principa%. Ct is c%ear that in this case, the work of petitioner as sa%es representati"e was direct%y re%ated to the business of B9.. 8ue to G+s %ength of ser"ice, he had attained the status of regu%ar emp%oyee and thus cannot be terminated without ,ust or "a%id cause. B9. fai%ed to pro"e that his dismissa% was for cause and that he was afforded procedura% due process. G is thus entit%ed to reinstatement p%us fu%% backwages from his dismissa% up to actua% reinstatement. (Vin-#a $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 12/9+/% Fe2r!ar# 2% 2000, Q: B is a %ady =ecurity :uard of .ompany ?. =he was %ast assigned at Gicente 7adriga% .ondominium CC %ocated in Aya%a A"enue, 7akati. Cn a memorandum, the Bui%ding Administrator of G7 .ondomunium CC comp%ained of the %a0ity of the guards in enforcing security measures and re&uested to reorganiDe the men and women assigned to the bui%ding to induce more discip%ine and proper decorum. B was then transferred another bui%ding in -aytay, BiDa%. B fi%ed a comp%aint a%%eging that her transfer amounted to an un,ust dismissa%. (as the transfer of B i%%ega%) A: /o. =er"ice'oriented enterprises adhere to the business adage that, Ethe customer is a%ways right.F Cn the emp%oyment of personne%, the emp%oyer has management prerogati"es sub,ect on%y to %imitations imposed by %aw. -he transfer of an emp%oyee wou%d on%y amount to constructi"e dismissa% when such is unreasonab%e, incon"enient, or pre,udicia% to the emp%oyee, and when it in"o%"es a demotion in rank or diminution of sa%aries, benefits and other pri"i%eges. Cn this case, the transfer was done in good faith and in the best interest of the business enterprise. @"idence does not show that .ompany ? discriminated against B in effecting her transfer as such was done to comp%y with a reasonab%e re&uest. -he mere incon"enience of a new ,ob assignment does not by itse%f make the transfer i%%ega%. (OSS Se !ri"# and Allied Ser$i es% In & $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 112(92% Fe2r!ar# +% 2000, Q: .ompany ( is conducts a printing business in =ta. .ruD 7akati. -he .ompany informed its workers that it was going to transfer its site in 7akati to Batangas. Ct ga"e its emp%oyees time to inform the management of their wi%%ingness to go with petitioner, otherwise, they wou%d find rep%acements. -he >nion ad"ised the company that its members were not wi%%ing to transfer to the new site. Are the emp%oyees entit%ed to separation pay by "irtue of their refusa% to transfer to the business in Batangas. A: *es. A%though there is no comp%ete disso%ution of petitioner+s undertaking, but a mere re%ocation$ the phrase, Ec%osure or cessation of operation of an estab%ishment not due to serious business %osses or re"erses,F under Artic%e 3!1 of the <abor .ode inc%udes the cessation of on%y part of a company+s business. .ompany ( had a%egitimate reason to re%ocate its p%ant due to the e0piration of the %ease contract in 7akati$ howe"er, it is sti%% re&uired to pay its workers separation pay. .essation of operation not due to serious business %osses is an authoriDed cause for termination$ and the <abor .ode pro"ides that such terminated emp%oyees are entit%ed to separation pay of 1 month pay or at %east A month for e"ery year of ser"ice, whiche"er is

SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille higher. (C<eni$er .e - Prin" Te <ni s C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 1220(/% Fe2r!ar# 1(% 2000, Q: 7era%co and its union 7@(A renegotiated its 1 3'1 4 .BA insofar as the %ast two'year period was concerned. -he =ecretary of <abor assumed ,urisdiction and granted the arbitra% awards. -here was no &uestion that these arbitra% awards were to be gi"en retroacti"e effect. Howe"er, the parties dispute the reckoning period when retroaction sha%% commence. 7era%co c%aims that the award shou%d retroact on%y from such time that the =ecretary of <abor rendered the award. -he union argues that the awards shou%d retroact to such time granted by the =ecretary who has p%enary and discretionary power to determine the effecti"ity of the arbitra% award. -he union cited the case of =t. <uke+s and 7indanao -ermina% where the =ecretary ordered the retroaction of the .BA to the date of e0piration of the pre"ious .BA. (hen shou%d the arbitra% award retroact) A: <abor %aws are si%ent as to when an arbitra% award in a %abor dispute where the =ecretary has assumed ,urisdiction by "irtue of Art. 3#1 HgI sha%% retroact. 8espite the si%ence of the %aw, the .ourt ru%ed that the .BA arbitra% awards granted after si0 months from the e0piration of the %ast .BA sha%% retroact to such time agreed upon by both the emp%oyer and the emp%oyees or their union. Absent such agreement as to retroacti"ity, the award sha%% retroact to the first day after the si0'month period fo%%owing the e0piration of the %ast day of the .BA shou%d there be one. Cn the absence of a .BA, the =ecretary+s determination of the date of effecti"ity as part of his discretionary powers o"er arbitra% awards sha%% contro%. (6anila Ele "ri C-m;an# $& Se re"ar# -7 La2-r% '&R& N-& 12(9+0% Fe2r!ar# 22% 2000, Q: A, B and . were dri"ers of .ompany Q dri"ing the %atter+s ta0icabs e"ery other day on a 3J hour work schedu%e under the boundary system where petitioners earn an a"erage of 5J22 dai%y and pri"ate respondent regu%ar%y deducts an amount for the washing of the ta0i units. A, B and . decided to form a %abor union. <ater, .ompany Q refused to %et petitioners dri"e their ta0icabs. A, B and . fi%ed with the %abor arbiter a comp%aint for ><5, i%%ega% dismissa%, and i%%ega% deductions. -he /<B. found for A, B and . stating that dismissa% must be for ,ust cause and after due process. .ompany QKs first motion for reconsideration was denied. Ct fi%ed another 7B, which was then granted. =hou%d the /<B. ha"e granted the second 7B) A: /o. .ompany Q e0hausted administrati"e remedies a"ai%ab%e to it by seeking an 7B. -he rationa%e for a%%owing on%y one 7B from the same party is to assist the parties in obtaining an e0peditious and ine0pensi"e sett%ement of %abor cases. -he /<B. shou%d ha"e recogniDed that the re%ationship between ,eepney'owners and ,eepney dri"ers under the boundary system is that of ee'er and not that of %essor'%essee. -he fact that the dri"ers do not recei"e fi0ed wages is not sufficient to withdraw the re%ationship f1om that of er and ee. -herefore the termination of A, B and .+s emp%oyment shou%d ha"e be effectuated in accordance with %aw. (ith regard to the amount deducted for washing, such was not i%%ega% as such is indeed a practice in the ta0i industry and is dictated by fair p%ay. (*ardin $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 11+2/0% Fe2r!ar# 2)% 2000, Q: >nion 7 is an affi%iate of 9ederation >. A bitter disagreement ensued between the 9ederation > and the >nion 7 cu%minating in the %atter+s dec%aration of genera% autonomy from the former. -he federation asked the company to stop the remittance of >nion 7+s share in the education funds. -he federation ca%%ed a meeting p%acing >nion 7 under trusteeship and appointing an administrator. ?fficers of >nion 7 recei"ed %etters from the administrator re&uiring them to e0p%ain why they shou%d not be remo"ed from their office and e0pe%%ed from union membership. -he officers were e0pe%%ed from the federation. -he federation then ad"ised the company of the e0pu%sion of the 12 union officers and demanded their separation pursuant to the >nion =ecurity .%ause in the .BA. -he 9ederation fi%ed a notice of strike with the /.7B to compe% the company to effect the immediate termination of the e0pe%%ed union officers. >nder the pressure of a strike, the company terminated the 12 union officers from emp%oyment. >nion 7 fi%ed a notice of strike on the grounds of discrimination$ interference$ mass dismissa% of union officers and shop stewards$ threats, coercion and intimidation$ and union busting. 7embers of >nion 7 prayed for the suspension of the effects of their termination. =ecretary 8ri%on dismissed the petition stating it was a intra'uion matter. <ater, 4! union shop stewards were p%aced under pre"enti"e suspension. -he union members staged a wa%k'out and

SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille officia%%y dec%ared a strike that afternoon. -he strike was attended by "io%ence. dismissa% of the union officers i%%ega%)

(as the

A: *es. -he charges against respondent company proceeded main%y from the termination of the union officers upon the demand of the federation pursuant to the union security c%ause. A%though the union security c%ause may be "a%id%y enforced, such must comp%y with due process. Cn this case, the union officers were e0pe%%ed for a%%eged%y committing acts of dis%oya%ty to the federation. -he company did not in&uire into the cause of the e0pu%sion and mere%y re%ied upon the federation+s a%%egations. -he issue is not a pure%y intra'union matter as it was %ater on con"erted into a termination dispute when the company dismissed the petitioners from work without the benefit of a separate notice and hearing. As to the act of disaffi%iation by the %oca% union$ it is sett%ed that a %oca% union has the right to disaffi%iate from its mother union in the absence of specific pro"isions in the federation+s constitution prohibiting such. -here was no such pro"ision in federation ><:(5+s constitution. Q: Cn the abo"e case, was the strike i%%ega%) A: /o. As to the %ega%ity of the strike$ it was based on the termination dispute and petitioners be%ie"ed in good faith that in dismissing them, the company was gui%ty of ><5. -he no'strike, no %ockout pro"ision in the .BA can on%y be in"oked when the strike is economic. As to the "io%ence, both parties agreed that the "io%ence was not attributed to the striking emp%oyees a%one as the company itse%f hired men to pacify the strikers. =uch "io%ence cannot be a ground for dec%aring the strike i%%ega%. (6ala#an8 Sama<an n8 m8a 6an88a8a=a sa 6& 'reen7ield (6S6'0U?P, $& Ram-s% '&R& N-& 11)+0(% Fe2r!ar# 20% 2000, Q: -he <A ordered petitioner to pay respondents the sum of 5#;;, !##.J1. 5etitioner appea%ed to the /<B. with a motion for the reduction of the supersedeas to 5122,222 and thereafter posted a cash bond of 5122,222. -he /<B. dismissed the appea% for insufficiency of the bond. 5etitioner said the =tar Ange% doctrine shou%d app%y where the appea% may be perfected after that period upon posting of a cash or surety bond. Howe"er, the /<B. disagreed stating that in this case, the petitioner did not fi%e a motion for reduction of bond within the period but instead posted a bond in an amount not e&ui"a%ent to the monetary award. (as the motion for the reduction of the bond fi%ed in time) A: *es. -hat petitioner did fi%e a motion within the period is supported by the fo%%owing: 1. -he motion for reduction was stamped with the Erecei"edF rubber stamp marker of the /<B. and indicated the date of fi%ing as #.4. #. 3. Both the motion and the appea% memorandum were sent to respondents in one en"e%ope and sent by registered mai% under Beg. Beceipt 1;4#. 1. -he same person notariDed both the motion and the appea% on the same date. J. ?n the %ast page of their comments, respondents stated that Ethe motion for reduction shou%d be founded on meritorious grounds.F -his was found by the =. to be an imp%ied admittance of the receipt of the motion. Besides, respondents cou%d ,ust as we%% ha"e stated in their comments that no motion was fi%ed. (C-ral P-in" .e$el-;men" C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% '&R& N-&12+(/1% Fe2r!ar# 20% 2000, Q: A was a ,eepney dri"er of X on the boundary system. 8ue to a change in schedu%e, they did not report for work as protest. -hey were then rep%aced. A fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% asking for separation pay and other benefits. ?n /o"ember 3#, 1 1, the %abor arbiter rendered ,udgment in fa"or of A. X was ser"ed a copy of the decision on Apri% 1, 1 3. X fi%ed a memorandum on appea% on Apri% 11, 1 3$ howe"er the appea% bond was on%y fi%ed on Apri% 12, 1 3. A%so, such bond was found to be spurious. Ct was on%y on Ju%y 32, 1 1 that a substitute bond was issued by another company. 8id the /<B. ha"e ,urisdiction to hear the appea%) A: /o. -he perfection of an appea% within the reg%ementary period and in the manner prescribed by %aw is ,urisdictiona%, and noncomp%iance with such %ega% re&uirement is fata% and has the effect of rendering the ,udgment fina% and e0ecutory. 5erfection of an appea% inc%udes the fi%ing, within the prescribed period of the memorandum of appea% and posting of the appea% bond. Cn cases where the ,udgment in"o%"es a monetary award, as in this case, the appea% may be perfected on%y upon posting of a cash or surety bond to the /<B.. =ince the X recei"ed the

SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille <A+s decision on Apri% 1, they had on%y unti% Apri% 11 to fi%e their appea%. -he bond was posted on%y on Apri% 12$ beyond the reg%ementary period. -he re&uirement of posting the bond has on%y been re%a0ed on grounds of substantia% ,ustice and specia% circumstances which are not attendant in this case. 9urthermore, the bond posted was not genuine. -he decision can no %onger be amended nor a%tered by the %abor tribuna%. (Na$arr- $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 11/4/4% 6ar < 1% 2000, Q: A, is a member of the /9<, emp%oyed by X in the 5ata%on .oconut @state in Lamboanga .ity. 5ursuant to BA ##;4, the .omprehensi"e Agrarian Beform <aw, the 5ata%on .ocount @state was warded to the 5ata%on @state Beform Association, of which A is a member and co' owner. As a resu%t of this ac&uisition, the 5ata%on @state shut down operations and the emp%oyment of A was se"ered. A did not recei"e separation pay. A became co'owner of the %and and subse&uent%y fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. =hou%d X, who had been compe%%ed to cease operations because of compu%sory ac&uisition by the go"ernment of his %and for purposes of agrarian reform, be made %iab%e to pay separation pay to A) A: /o. -he pecu%iar circumstance in the case at bar in"o%"es neither the c%osure of an estab%ishment nor a reduction in personne% as contemp%ated in Artic%e 3!1. -he c%osure contemp%ated in 3!1 is a "o%untary act on the part of the emp%oyer. -he <abor .ode does not contemp%ate a situation where the c%osure is forced upon the emp%oyer. As such, petitioners are not entit%ed to separation pay as pri"ate respondents did not "o%untary shut down operations as they e"en sought to be e0empted from the co"erage of BA ##;4. (Na"i-nal Federa"i-n -7 La2-r $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 12((10% 6ar < 2% 2000,

Q: A and B were emp%oyed by .ompany @. A app%ied for a %ea"e of absence and informed the ?perations 7anager of his intention to a"ai% of the optiona% retirement p%an under the .onsecuti"e @n%istment Cncenti"e 5%an H.@C5I. =uch was denied. B a%so app%ied for a %ea"e of absence and informed the ?perations 7anger of his intention to a"ai% of the optiona% ear%y retirement p%an in "iew of his 32 years of ser"ice which was %ikewise denied. A and B both re&uested for e0tension of their %ea"es of absence. <ater, they disco"ered that they had been dropped from the roster of crew members. .ompany @ asserts that A and B are contractua% emp%oyees whose emp%oyment are terminated e"ery time their contracts e0pire. (ere A and B "a%id%y dismissed) A: /o. -he primary standard to determine a regu%ar emp%oyment is the reasonab%e connection between the acti"ity performed by the emp%oyee in re%ation to the usua% business or trade of the emp%oyer. Cn this case it is undisputed that petitioners were regu%ar emp%oyees of pri"ate respondents. A%so, as they had been in the emp%oy of pri"ate respondents for 32 years as they were repeated%y re'hired after the e0piration of their respecti"e contracts, it is c%ear that their ser"ice was necessary and indispensab%e to pri"ate respondent+s business. -herefore, they cou%d on%y be dismissed for ,ust and "a%id cause. -here is no showing that they abandoned their ,ob as there was no showing of their un,ustified refusa% to resume emp%oyment. (6illares $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 110924% 6ar < 14% 2000, Q: X is a members of >nion =. -he @0ecuti"e Board of >nion = decided to retain the ser"ices of their counse% in connection with negotiations for a new .BA. A genera% membership meeting was ca%%ed where ma,ority of union members appro"ed a reso%ution confirming the decision to engage the ser"ices of the union+s counse%, Atty. <acsina. -he reso%ution pro"ided that 12M of the tota% economic benefits that may be secured be gi"en to the counse% at attorney+s fees. A%so it contained an authoriDation for =o%idbank .orporation to check'off said attorney+s fees from the first %ump sum of payment of benefits under the new .BA. X issued a comp%aint for i%%ega% deduction. 7ay the union "a%id%y deduct attorney+s fees from X+s sa%ary) A: /o. Artic%e 3J1 has 1 re&uisites for the "a%idity of the specia% assessment for union+s incidenta% e0penses, attorney+s fees and representation e0penses. -hey are: 1. authoriDation by a written reso%ution of ma,ority of a%% the members at the genera% membership meeting ca%%ed for the purpose 3. secretary+s record of the minutes of the meeting 1. indi"idua% written authoriDation for check'off du%y signed by the emp%oyees concerned.

SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille =uch re&uirements were not comp%ied with, as there were no indi"idua% written check off authoriDations$ thus, the emp%oyer cannot %ega%%y deduct thus the assessment. -he union shou%d be made to shou%der the e0penses incurred for the ser"ices of a %awyer and according%y, reimbursement shou%d be charged to the union+s genera% fund or account. /o deduction can be made from the sa%aries of the concerned emp%oyees other than those mandated by %aw. ('a2riel% e" al $& Se re"ar# -7 La2-r% '&R& N-& 119+4+% 6ar < 1/% 2000, Q: A and B were emp%oyed by 5A< as %oad contro%%er and check'in c%erk, respecti"e%y. ?n January 1 , 1 1, a passenger by the name of .ominero checked in for the f%ight. Ct appears that B ref%ected a %ighter weight of baggage on .ominero+s ticket to make it appear that the same was within the a%%owab%e %e"e%. (hen the anoma%y was %ater disco"ered, B went to the cashier to pay the e0cess baggage fee. .ominero further paid the sum representing the e0cess baggage fee. B imp%icated A in the anoma%y. A and B were charged with Efraud against the companyF and were found gui%ty and meted with the pena%ty of dismissa%. -he /<B. found that the a%%eged defrauding of 5A<+s e0cess baggage re"enue was not the handiwork of A and that 5A< fai%ed to show it suffered %oss in re"enues as a conse&uence of pri"ate respondent+s &uestioned act. (as A "a%id%y dismissed) A: *es. -he core of 5A<+s e"idence against A inc%uded the report of B. Ct was erroneous for the /<B. to ha"e discredited B+s testimony because he appeared gui%ty as we%%. -here is substantia% e"idence showing that pri"ate respondent had direct in"o%"ement in the i%%ega% poo%ing of baggage. A+s act is ine0cusab%e as it constitutes a serious offense under petitioner+s .ode of 8iscip%ine. -he fact that 5A< fai%ed to show it suffered %osses in re"enue is immateria% as pri"ate respondent+s mere attempt to depri"e petitioner of its %awfu% remedy is a%ready tantamount to fraud. -herefore, A was "a%id%y dismissed and as such was for a ,ust cause, he is not entit%ed to backwages nor separation pay. (PAL $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 12/009% 6ar < 1/% 2000, Q: -he /9< was the so%e and e0c%usi"e bargaining representati"e for the rank and fi%e emp%oyees of .ompany X. /9< started to negotiate for better terms and conditions of emp%oyment$ which were met with resistance by .ompany X. -he /9< fi%ed a comp%aint for ><5 on the ground of refusa% to bargain co%%ecti"e%y. <A issued an order dec%aring the company gui%ty of ><5 and ordering the .BA proposa%s submitted by the /9< as the .BA between the parties. <ater, * c%aimed that he was wrongfu%%y e0c%uded from the benefits under the .BA fi%ed a petition for re%ief. .ompany X asserts that * is not entit%ed to the benefits under the .BA because he was hired after the term of a .BA and therefore, is not a party to the agreement and may not c%aim benefits thereunder. As for the .BA, .ompany X maintains that the force and effect of the .BA+s terms are %imited to on%y three years and cannot e0tend to terms and conditions which ceased to ha"e force and effect. Are the assertions of .ompany X correct) A: /o. As to its first assertion, * shou%d be ab%e to c%aim benefits under the .BA. -he benefits under the .BA shou%d be e0tended to those who on%y became such after it e0pired, to e0c%ude them wou%d constitute undue discrimination. Cn fact, when a .BA is entered into by the union representing the emp%oyees and the emp%oyer, e"en the non'union members are entit%ed to the benefits of the contract. As to its assertion that the .BA+s terms are %imited to on%y three years, it is c%ear from Art. 3;1 that unti% a new .BA has been e0ecuted by and between the parties, they are duty bound to keep the status &uo and to continue in fu%% force and effect the terms and conditions of the e0isting agreement. Cn the case at bar, no new agreement was entered between the parties pending appea% of the decision in the /<B.. .onse&uent%y, the emp%oyees wou%d be depri"ed of a substantia% amount of monetary benefits if the terms and conditions of the .BA were not to remain in force and effect which runs counter to the intent of the <abor .ode to curb %abor unrest and promote industria% peace. (Ne= Pa i7i Tim2er S!;;l# C-& $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 124224% 6ar < 1(% 2000, Q: A was emp%oyed as a data encoder by pri"ate respondent. 9rom 1 !! unti% 1 1, she entered into 11 emp%oyment contracts with pri"ate respondent, each contract for a period of 1 months. Cn =eptember 1 1, A and 13 other emp%oyees a%%eged%y agreed to the fi%ing of a 5.@ of the rank and fi%e emp%oyees of pri"ate respondent. =ubse&uent%y, A recei"ed a termination

SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille %etter due to E%ow "o%ume of work.F A fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. (as A a regu%ar emp%oyee entit%ed to tenuria% security) A: *es. @"en though petitioner is a pro,ect emp%oyee, as in the case of 7araguinot, Jr. ". /<B., the court he%d that a pro,ect emp%oyee or member of a work poo% may ac&uire the status of a regu%ar emp%oyee when the fo%%owing concur: 1. there is continuous rehiring of pro,ect emp%oyees e"en after the cessation of a pro,ect 3. the tasks performed by the a%%eged Epro,ect emp%oyeeF are "ita%, necessary and indispensab%e to the usua% business and trade of the emp%oyer. A was emp%oyed as a data encoder performing duties, which are usua%%y necessary or desirab%e in the usua% business or trade of the emp%oyer, continuous%y for a period of more than 1 years. Being a regu%ar emp%oyee, A is entit%ed to security of tenure and cou%d on%y be dismissed for a ,ust and authoriDed cause$ %ow "o%ume of work is not a "a%id cause for dismissa% under Arts. 3!3 or 3!1. Ha"ing worked for more than 1 years, A is a%so entit%ed to ser"ice incenti"e %ea"e benefits from 1 ! unti% her actua% reinstatement since such is demandab%e after one year of ser"ice, whether continuous or broken. (Im2!id- $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 114()4% 6ar < )1% 2000, Q: A was emp%oyed as a security guard by .ompany X. 8uring a routinary meeting of the security guards, A stood up and shouted at the presiding officer. =he was then suspended for 1; days. <ater, she recei"ed a %etter that she was reassigned and re&uired to report to respondent+s 7ani%a office. Her ser"ices were terminated for abandonment when she fai%ed to report for work in her new assignment. -he <abor Arbiter found for petitioner. 5ri"ate respondent appea%ed to the /<B., which denied the appea%. -he decision ha"ing become fina%, the <A issued a writ of e0ecution on the reinstatement aspect, but it was not imp%emented as the monetary aspect remained to be determined. <ater, /<B. sheriff issued a notice of :arnishment ser"ed on pri"ate respondent+s deposit account with the 5/B. -he <A directed the 5/B to re%ease the amount. 7eanwhi%e, .ompany X fi%ed with the <A a motion to &uash the writ of e0ecution on the ground that there has been a change in the situation of the parties which wou%d make the e0ecution ine&uitab%e. Ct contended that A accepted emp%oyment from another security agency without pre"ious%y resigning from respondent+s agency. =hou%d the <abor Arbiter sti%% order the re%ease of the ,udgment award) A: *es. @0ecution is the fina% stage of %itigation, the end of the suit. Ct cannot be frustrated e0cept for serious reasons demanded by ,ustice and e&uity. Ct is the ministeria% duty of the court to issue a writ of e0ecution to enforce the ,udgment. .ompany X+s contention that there has been a change in the situation of the parties is without merit. Ct has been he%d that back wages awarded to an i%%ega%%y dismissed emp%oyee sha%% not be diminished or reduced by the earnings by him e%sewhere during the period of his i%%ega% dismissa%. -he decision is fina% and the tota% amount representing the sa%ary differentia%s and back wages awarded to the petitioner has been garnished from the account of respondent agency with no opposition or resistance. -herefore, it is the ministeria% duty of the <A to re%ease the money to A. (T-rres $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 10(014% A;ril 12% 2000, Q: ?n 8ecember 1 !#, 8e <a =a%%e >ni"ersity and 8e <a =a%%e >ni"ersity @mp%oyee+s Association, which is composed of regu%ar non'academic rank and fi%e emp%oyees entered into a .BA. 8uring the freedom period of such .BA, the >nion initiated negotiations, which turned out to be unsuccessfu%. After se"era% conci%iation meetings, ; out of 11 issues were reso%"ed by the parties. A partia% .BA was e0ecuted. -he parties then entered into a =ubmission Agreement identifying the remaining issues for arbitration. Cn reso%"ing the issues, the GA inc%uded the computer operators from the scope of the .BA and e0c%uded the emp%oyees of the .o%%ege of =t. Beni%de. 8id the GA act proper%y in ru%ing as such) A: *es. .omputer operators were present%y doing c%erica% and routinary work and had nothing to do with the setting of management po%icies for the uni"ersity. -he access they ha"e to information to the >ni"ersity+s operations are not necessari%y confidentia%. -he e0press e0c%usion of the computer operators in the past does not pose a bar to re'negotiation for future inc%usion of the said emp%oyees in the bargaining unit. A%so, as to the emp%oyees of the .=B, they were proper%y e0c%uded at the two education institutions ha"e their own separate ,uridica% persona%ity. H8e %a =a%%e >ni"ersity ". 8e <a =a%%e >ni"ersity @mp%oyees Association, :.B. /o. 12 223, Apri% 13, 3222I


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q: A recei"ed a %etter ca%%ing to his attention his conduct during a =a%es and 7arketing .hristmas gathering where she a%%eged%y made utterances of obscene, insu%ting and offensi"e words towards the =5.+s 7anagement .ommittee. A was gi"en two days to e0p%ain why no discip%inary action shou%d be taken against him and he was thereafter p%aced on pre"enti"e suspension. A rep%ied stating that such utterances were on%y made in reference to a decision taken by the management committee on the .ua <im .ase and not to any specific person. A was thereafter informed in a %etter that his emp%oyment was terminated. (as A "a%id%y dismissed) A: /o. A+s dismissa% was brought about by utterances made during an informa% .hristmas gathering. 9or misconduct to warrant dismissa%, it must be in connection with the emp%oyee+s work. Cn this case, the a%%eged misconduct was neither in connection with emp%oyee+s work, as A+s utterances are not unusua% in informa% gatherings, neither was it of such serious and gra"e character. 9urthermore, A+s outburst was in reaction to the decision of the management in a certain case and was not intended to ma%ign on the person of the respondent company+s president and genera% manager. -he company itse%f did not seem to consider the offense serious to warrant an immediate in"estigation. Ct is a%so pro"ided in the company+s ru%es and regu%ations that for conduct such as that of A, a first offense wou%d on%y warrant a E"erba% reminderF and not dismissa%. H=amson ". /<B., :.B. /o.13121;, Apri% 13, 3222I. Q: X was emp%oyed by .ompany . as assistant mechanic. X dro"e .ompany .+s truck to insta%% a pane% sign and accidenta%%y sideswiped a ten year o%d gir% whose in,uries incurred hospita%iDation e0penses of up to 51 ,;1J.J;. =uch amount was not reimbursed by insurance as X had no dri"er+s %icense at the time of the accident$ therefore .ompany . shou%dered the e0penses. .ompany . conducted an in"estigation where X was gi"en the opportunity to defend himse%f. X was then dismissed for "io%ating the company ru%es and regu%ation for b%atant disregard of estab%ished contro% procedures resu%ting in company damages. (as X "a%id%y dismissed) A: *es. A%though X contends that he was in"estigated simp%y for the offense of dri"ing without a "a%id dri"er+s %icense, it was c%ear that he was fu%%y aware that he was being in"estigated for his in"o%"ement in the "ehicu%ar accident. Ct was a%so known to him that the accident caused the "ictim to suffer serious in,uries %eading to e0penses which the insurance refused to co"er. 8ue process does not necessari%y re&uire a hearing, as %ong as one is gi"en reasonab%e opportunity to be heard. X+s actions c%ear%y constituted wi%%fu% disobedience. A%though genera%%y, an emp%oyee who is dismissed for ,ust cause is not entit%ed to any financia% assistance, due to e&uity considerations as this was X+s first offense in 1! years of ser"ice, he is to be granted separation pay by way of financia% assistance of A month+s pay for e"ery year of ser"ice. (A;aren"e% Sr& $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 11(/92% A;ril 2(% 2000, Q: * was a company nurse for the .ompany L. A memorandum was issued by the personne% manager of .ompany L to * asking her to e0p%ain why no action shou%d be taken against her for H1I throwing a stap%er at p%ant manager (i%%iam .hua$ H3I for %osing the amount of 51,J!! entrusted to her, H1I for asking a co'emp%oyee to punch in her time card one morning when she was not there. =he was then p%aced on pre"enti"e suspension. Another memorandum was sent to her asking her to e0p%ain why she fai%ed to process the A-7 app%ications of her co' emp%oyees. =he submitted a written e0p%anation as to the %oss of the 51,J!! and the punching in of her time card. A third memorandum was sent to her informing her of her termination from ser"ice for gross and habitua% neg%ect of duties, serious misconduct, and fraud or wi%%fu% breach of trust. * c%aims that her throwing of the stap%er at p%ant manager (i%%iam .hua was because the %atter had been making se0ua% ad"ances on her since her first year of emp%oyment and that when she wou%d not accede to his re&uests, he threatened that he wou%d cause her termination from ser"ice. As to the other charges, she c%aimed that they were not done with ma%ice or bad faith. (as * i%%ega%%y dismissed, and if so, is she entit%ed to reco"er damages)


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille A: *es. -he grounds by which an emp%oyer may "a%id%y terminate the ser"ices of an emp%oyee must be strict%y construed. -o constitute serious misconduct to ,ustify dismissa%, the acts must be done in re%ation to the performance of her duties as wou%d show her to be unfit to continue working for her emp%oyer. -he acts comp%ained of did not pertain to her duties as a nurse neither did they constitute serious misconduct. ?n the &uestion of damages, a%though * a%%owed four years to pass before coming out with her emp%oyer+s se0ua% impositions$ the time to do so admitted%y "aries depending upon the needs, circumstances and emotiona% thresho%d of each person. Ct is c%ear that * has suffered an0iety, s%eep%ess nights, besmirched reputation and socia% humi%iation by reason of the act comp%ained of. -hus, she shou%d be entit%ed to mora% and e0emp%ary damages for the oppressi"e manner with which petitioner+s effected her dismissa% and to ser"e as a warning to officers who take ad"antage of their ascendancy o"er their emp%oyees. (P<ili;;ine Ae-l!s A!"-m-"i$e Uni"ed C-r;-ra"-in $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 124/1(% A;ril 20% 2000, Q: Csetann 8ept =tore dismissed B due to retrenchment. Howe"er instead of gi"ing the re&uired 12 day notice, the company ga"e 12 days pay arguing that this is effecti"e notice. -hey made B sign &uitc%aims so that there wou%d be no more c%aims from them. -he <abor Arbiter ru%ed that the B was i%%ega%%y dismissed because they were not afforded due process because they fai%ed to pro"e retrenchment due to %osses. -he /<B. re"ersed the ru%ing saying that the dismissa% was ,ustified because it was due to redundancy and not retrenchment. -he /<B. howe"er did not ru%e on whether the 12 day pay was a sufficient substitute for the 12 day notice. -he petitioner argues further that they shou%d be gi"en the chance to present his side. (as the 12 days pay sufficient rep%acement for 12 day notice) A: /o. -he .ourt ru%ed that since the dismissa% is due to an authoriDed cause on%y notice is re&uired and that the emp%oyee has no right to present his side. -he 12 day notice is needed in order to afford the emp%oyee enough time to %ook for work and to gi"e the 8?<@ time to %ook into the "a%idity of the authoriDed cause. 12 days pay is not enough to rep%ace the notice re&uirement because it wou%d not ser"e the purpose of the notice. Additiona%%y, backwages are not a se"ere punishment because it is a conse&uence of the emp%oyer+s fai%ure to gi"e notice and due process and the emp%oyee is therefore not deemed terminated so he shou%d be compensated for that period. (Serran- $s NLRC% 'R N- 11(040% 6a# 4% 2000, Q: A and B fi%ed a petition for certification e%ection. -heir petition was granted but they %ost in the e%ection as ma,ority of the emp%oyees "oted for Eno unionF. -he ne0t day, they fai%ed to report for work. -hey c%aim that they were barred from entering the premises. -hey fi%ed a suit for i%%ega% dismissa% and backwages. -he company denied these a%%egations and a%%eged that A and B refused to return to work despite their attention being ca%%ed. (ere A and B %ega%%y dismissed) A: /o. -he .ourt ru%ed that an immediate fi%ing of a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% is incompatib%e with abandonment. Abandonment is a matter of intention. -here must be proof of de%iberate and un,ustified intent to se"er the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship. -his burden rests on the emp%oyer. Cn this case, the emp%oyer fai%ed to do so. =ince they were i%%ega%%y dismissed, the emp%oyees are entit%ed to reinstatement with fu%% backwages, undiminished by their earnings e%sewhere. (Villar $& NLRC% 'R N- 1)0+)9% 6a# 11% 2000, Q: A schoo% emp%oys both %oca%'hire and foreign'hire teachers. -he foreign'hire teachers were gi"en an added 3;M in their sa%ary and some benefits %ike transportation and housing, shipping costs etc. -hese were gi"en based on two things: dis%ocation and %imited tenure. -he added compensation was the schoo%+s way of remaining competiti"e on an internationa% %e"e% in terms of attracting competent teachers. -he %oca%'hire teachers, part of the union contested the difference, a dead%ock resu%ted so the teachers went on strike. Cs there discrimination in terms of wages) A: *es, there is discrimination. -he princip%e Ee&ua% pay for e&ua% workF shou%d app%y in this case. 5ersons who work with substantia%%y e&ua% &ua%ifications, ski%%, effort and responsibi%ity, under simi%ar conditions, shou%d be paid simi%ar sa%aries. Cf an emp%oyee is paid %ess it is upon the emp%oyer to e0p%ain why the emp%oyee is treated different%y. 8is%ocation and %imited tenure


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille cannot ser"e as ade&uate or "a%id bases for the difference in the sa%ary rates. -he other benefits are enough to make up for these two factors. -here is no reasonab%e distinction between the work of a %oca%'hire and a foreign'hire that wi%% ,ustify the difference. (In"erna"i-nal S <--l Allian e -7 Ed! a"-rs $& @!is!m2in8% 'R N- 120049% *!ne 1% 2000, Q: A company was found to ha"e underpaid their emp%oyees and did not pay the 11 th month pay on a routine inspection conducted by 8?<@. -he regiona% director ordered the company to pay the deficiency. =ubse&uent%y, the /<B. affirmed the order. A wai"er was signed by 12! of the workers where they reduced by ha%f the amount that was due. 8?<@ appro"ed the wai"er saying that it was not contrary to %aw, good customs and pub%ic po%icy. <ater, petitioner fi%ed a motion for reconsideration a%%eging undue inf%uence, coercion, intimidation, and no assistance of counse%. -he motion was denied. @duardo /ietes, c%aiming that he represented the workers, fi%ed a position paper with the same argument. -he /<B. dismissed the case for fai%ure to ac&uire ,urisdiction. He again fi%ed an appea% but the appea% was denied for being fi%ed out of time. -he appea% was fi%ed days %ate a%ong with the appea% fee and research fee. (as the appea% was fi%ed out of time) A: *es, the appea% was fi%ed out of time. -he perfection of an appea% within the reg%amentary period and in the manner prescribed by %aw is mandatory and ,urisdictiona%. /on'comp%iance renders the ,udgement appea%ed fina% and e0ecutory. An appea% is perfected when there is proof of payment of the appea% fee and in cases of the emp%oyer appea%ing and there is a monetary award, payment of the appea% bond. A mere notice of appea% without comp%ying with the other re&uisites sha%% not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appea%. =ometimes though, in the interest of ,ustice, %ate appea%s ha"e been a%%owed. An instance is a c%ass suit. Cn this case there is no e"idence that there is a c%ass suit. -here is no e"idence that the workers chose /ietes to represent them. -here is no showing that the workers are ,oined by a common interest. As there is no basis to in"a%idate the wai"er the workers signed, the wai"er is "a%id. (?-r:ers -7 An"iA!e Ele "ri C--;era"i$e $& NLRC% 'R N- 1200/2% *!ne 0% 2000, Q: X was a radio operator on board a ship where he had a contract for 13 months. He was re&uired to submit himse%f to a medica% e0amination. 5rior to this, he had a pacemaker inserted to he%p his cardio"ascu%ar functioning but he was sti%% dec%ared fit to work. ?n board the "esse%, he had bouts of coughing and he needed open heart surgery. He fi%ed for sickness and disabi%ity benefits with the 5?@A and these were awarded to him. Cs the sickness compensab%e) A: *es, it is compensab%e. .ompensabi%ity of the i%%ness or death of seamen need not depend on whether the i%%ness was work connected or not. Ct is sufficient that the i%%ness occurred during the term of the emp%oyment contract. Ct wi%% a%so be reca%%ed that petitioners admitted that pri"ate respondentKs work as a radio officer e0posed him to different c%imates and unpredictab%e weather, which cou%d trigger a heart attack or heart fai%ure. @"en assuming that the ai%ment of the worker was contracted prior to his emp%oyment, this sti%% wou%d not depri"e him of compensation benefits. 9or what matters is that his work had contributed, even in a small degree, to the development of the disease and in bringing about his e"entua% death. /either is it necessary, in order to reco"er compensation, that the emp%oyee must ha"e been in perfect hea%th at the time he contracted the disease. (Sea8!ll S<i;6ana8emen" and Trans;-r" In & $& NLRC% 'R N- 12)/1+% *!ne 0% 2000, Q: X is a merchandiser of respondent company. He withdraws stocks from the warehouse, fi0es the prices, price'tagging, disp%aying the products and in"entory. He was paid by the company through an agent. He asked for regu%ariDation of his status. -he company denied any emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship. -hey c%aim that they used an agent or independent contractors to se%% the merchandise. (as there %abor'on%y contracting) A: /o. -he agent is a %egitimate independent contractor. <abor'on%y contractor occurs on%y when the contractor mere%y recruits, supp%ies or p%aces workers to perform a ,ob for a principa%. -he %abor'on%y contractor does not ha"e substantia% capita% or in"estment and the workers recruited perform acti"ities direct%y re%ated to the principa% business of the emp%oyer. -here is permissib%e contracting on%y when the contractor carries an independent business and undertakes the contract in his own manner and method, free from the contro% of the principa%


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille and the contractor has substantia% capita% or in"estment. -he agent, and not the company, a%so e0ercises contro% o"er the petitioners. /o documents were submitted to pro"e that the company e0ercised contro% o"er them. -he agent hired the petitioners. -he agent a%so pays the petitioners, no e"idence was submitted showing that it was the company paying them and not the agent. Ct was a%so the agent who terminated their ser"ices. By petitioning for regu%ariDation, the petitioners concede that they are not regu%ar emp%oyees. (Es ari- $& NLRC% 'R N124099% *!ne 0% 2000, Q: X was origina%%y emp%oyed by B .orporation as a muff%er specia%ist, and was subse&uent%y appointed super"isor . He was instructed to report at pri"ate respondent+s main office where he was informed by the company+s personne% manager that he wou%d be transferred to its =ucat p%ant due to his fai%ure to meet his sa%es &uota, and for that reason, his super"isor+s a%%owance wou%d be withdrawn. 9or a short time, X reported for work at the =ucat p%ant$ howe"er, he protested his transfer, subse&uent%y fi%ing a comp%aint for i%%ega% termination. X decries his transfer as being "io%ati"e of his security of tenure, the c%ear imp%ication being that he was constructi"e%y dismissed. (as X constructi"e%y dismissed) A: /o. (e ha"e he%d that an emp%oyer acts we%% within its rights in transferring an emp%oyee as it sees fit pro"ided that there is no demotion in rank or diminution in pay. -he two circumstances are deemed badges of bad faith, and thus constituti"e of constructi"e dismissa%. Cn this regard, constructi"e dismissa% is defined as Ean in"o%untary resignation resorted to when continued emp%oyment becomes impossib%e, unreasonab%e, or un%ike%y$ when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay$ or when a c%ear discrimination, insensibi%ity or disdain by an emp%oyer becomes unbearab%e to the emp%oyee.F Ct shou%d be borne in mind, howe"er, that the right to demote an emp%oyee a%so fa%%s within the category of management prerogati"es. An emp%oyer is entit%ed to impose producti"ity standards for its workers, and in fact, non'comp%iance may be "isited with a pena%ty e"en more se"ere than demotion. 9ai%ure to obser"e prescribed standards of work, or to fu%fi%% reasonab%e work assignments due to inefficiency may constitute ,ust cause for dismissa%. (Le-nard- $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 129)0)% *!ne 1/% 2000, Q: * was emp%oyed as a mechanic. He was dismissed after the company found out that he was doing side%ine work. Ct wou%d appear that %ate in the e"ening of the day in &uestion, the dri"er of a red .oro%%a arri"ed at the shop %ooking for *. -he dri"er said that, as prearranged, he was to pick up * who wou%d perform a pri"ate ser"ice on the "ehic%e. (hen reports of the Nside%ineN work reached management, it confronted * and asked for an e0p%anation. According to pri"ate respondent, * ga"e contradictory e0cuses, e"entua%%y c%aiming that the unauthoriDed ser"ice was for an aunt. (hen pressed to present his aunt, it was then that * stopped reporting for work, fi%ing his comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% some ten months after his a%%eged termination. * was e"en emp%oyed by another company thereafter. (as there abandonment of work) A: *es. *, after being pressed by the respondent company to present the customer regarding his unauthoriDed so%icitation of side%ine work from the %atter and whom he c%aims to be his aunt, he ne"er reported back to work anymore. Ct must be stressed that whi%e * a%%eges that he was i%%ega%%y dismissed from his emp%oyment by the respondents, surprising%y, he ne"er stated any reason why the respondents wou%d want to ease him out from his ,ob. 7oreo"er, why did it take him ten H12I %ong months to fi%e his case if indeed he was aggrie"ed by respondents. A%% the abo"e facts c%ear%y point that the fi%ing of his case is a mere afterthought on the part of *. (Le-nard- $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 129)0)% *!ne 1/% 2000, Q: X is an officer and member of the 5:A Brotherhood Association, a du%y registered %abor organiDation, and is a security guard emp%oyed by 5=G=CA. He was informed that his ser"ices were being terminated. He contended that prior to such dismissa%, they were harassed by 5=G=CA officers to withdraw their membership from the 5:A Brotherhood Association. A%though 5=G=CA denied the charge of i%%ega% dismissa%, the <abor Arbiter dec%ared 5=G=CA and its responsib%e officers gui%ty of ><5 and dec%ared that petitioners were constructi"e%y dismissed, thereby ordering respondent to reinstate X to his former position with backwages up to the time of actua% reinstatement. Howe"er, X was paid monetary award for backwages pursuant to an ear%ier decision of the /<B. %imiting it to three years where he assented to the computation made by the /<B. reducing the backwages to three years. /o 7.B. was fi%ed. Cn fact, X e"en fi%ed a motion to re%ease the remaining ba%ance to satisfy the ,udgment awards. X fi%ed a motion


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille for c%arification of the reso%ution reiterating their prayer for the inc%usion of their backwages from time they were terminated up to the present Hunti% actua% or payro%% reinstatementI. How shou%d the backwages be computed) A: -he /<B. decision has become fina% and e0ecutory. /either a motion for reconsideration nor appea% was e"er taken by petitioners on this point. -his procedura% %apse is fata%. @&ua%%y significant is the fact that petitioners acti"e%y participated in the enforcement of the e0ecution by garnishing the supersedeas bond and the bank deposits of 5=G=CA. -he /<B. prepared a computation showing the back wages due petitioners for three H1I years. X not on%y assented to the computation made when they did not ob,ect thereto but e"en fi%ed a motion to re%ease the remaining ba%ance amounting to 51 !,#22.22 sti%% in the hands of the /<B. to fu%%y satisfy the ,udgment awards. X cannot now c%aim that they ha"e remained unpaid, especia%%y considering that they ha"e a%ready recei"ed the ,udgment award. (P'A Br-"<er<--d Ass- ia"i-n% e" al&% $& NLRC% '&R& N-& 1)1004% *!ne 1+% 2000,& Q: X was working as dri"er of passenger ,eepneys. He %ost his dri"er+s %icense and asked for permission to go on "acation %ea"e to secure a new one. X on%y returned after three months when he was ab%e to obtained his %icense. He was howe"er informed that another dri"er had a%ready taken his p%ace. -he company argues that the pro%onged absence of X constituted abandonment. X fi%ed a case for i%%ega% dismissa%. 8id X+s absence constitute abandonment) A: /o. -o constitute abandonment, two e%ements must concur: H1I the fai%ure to report for work or absence without "a%id or ,ustifiab%e reason, and H3I a c%ear intention to se"er the emp%oyer' emp%oyee re%ationship. =uch is disputed by the fact that pri"ate respondent immediate%y reported back for work and %ost no time in fi%ing a case for i%%ega% dismissa% against petitioners. (I a=a" $& NLRC% 'R 1))9(2% *!ne 20% 2000, Q: X was emp%oyed as manager by a company for its Hea%thcare 8i"ision. Cn Apri% 1 #, fictitious in"oices were sent to c%ients made to inf%ate the gross re"enues of the Hea%thcare 8i"ision$ and /okom was p%aced on pre"enti"e suspension as initia% findings showed her to be in"o%"ed in such anoma%y. X admitted the irregu%arities and made no e0p%anation. =he a%so fai%ed to appear during the hearing. After the in"estigation, X+s emp%oyment was terminated. X was found to ha"e been dismissed for Efraud or wi%%fu% breachF of the trust reposed on her by her emp%oyer or du%y authoriDed representati"e. (as X %ega%%y dismissed) A: *es. Cn the case at bar, petitioner+s position demanded a high degree of responsibi%ity, inc%uding the unearthing of fraudu%ent and irregu%ar acti"ities. 5etitioner fai%ed to do such and her bare denia%s did not dispro"e her gui%t. -he ordinary ru%e is that one who has know%edge pecu%iar%y within his contro%, and refuses to di"u%ge it, cannot comp%ain if the court puts the most unfa"orab%e construction upon his si%ence, and infers that a disc%osure wou%d ha"e shown the fact to be as c%aimed by the opposing party. <oss of confidence is one of the ,ust causes for a "a%id dismissa%$ and it is enough that there be Esome basisF for such %oss of confidence. -he guide%ines for the app%ication of the doctrine of %oss of confidence as enunciated in Midas Touch Food Corporation, are: a.....%oss of confidence shou%d not be simu%ated$ shou%d not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, i%%ega% or un,ustified$ may not be arbitrari%y asserted in the face of o"erwhe%ming e"idence to the contrary$ and must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to ,ustify ear%ier action taken in bad faith. An emp%oyer en,oys a wide %atitude in the promu%gation of company ru%es$ and in this case, the po%icies of respondent were fair and reasonab%e. (N-:-m $& NLRC% '&R& N-&14004)% *!l# 10% 2000, Q: X, 5resident of the e0c%usi"e bargaining agent initiated renegotiations of its .BA with the company for the %ast two years of the .BA+s ; year %ifetime from 1 ! '1 J. ?n the same year, the union e%ected a new set of officers with L as the new%y e%ected 5resident. L wanted to continue renegotiation, but the company c%aimed that the .BA was a%ready prepared for signing. -he .BA was submitted to a referendum which was re,ected by the union members. <ater, the union notified the /.7B of its intention to strike due to the company+s refusa% to bargain.


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille -hereafter, the parties agreed to disregard the unsigned .BA and to start negotiation on a new fi"e'year .BA. -he union submitted its proposa%s to petitioner, which notified the union that the same was submitted to its Board of -rustees. 7eanwhi%e, L+s work schedu%e was changed, which she protested and re&uested to be submitted to a grie"ance machinery under the o%d .BA. 8ue to the company+s inaction, the union fi%ed a notice of strike. <ater, L was dismissed for a%%eged insubordination. Both parties again discussed the ground ru%es for the .BA renegotiations$ howe"er the company stopped negotiations after a%%eged%y recei"ing information that a new group of emp%oyees had fi%ed a 5etition for .ertification @%ections. -he union he%d a stike and the =ecretary assumed ,urisdiction ordering a%% striking workers to return to work. A%% were readmitted e0cept L. 1. Cs the company gui%ty of unfair %abor practice by refusing to bargain with the union when it uni%atera%%y suspended the ongoing negotiations for a new .BA upon mere information that a petition for certification has been fi%ed by another %egitimate %abor organiDation) 3. 8oes the termination of the union president amount to an interference of the emp%oyees+ right to se%f'organiDation) A: 1. /o. -he duty to bargain co%%ecti"e%y inc%udes the mutua% ob%igation to meet and con"ene prompt%y and e0peditious%y in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement. 5etitioner fai%ed to make a time%y rep%y to the union+s proposa%s, thereby "io%ating the proper procedure in co%%ecti"e bargaining as pro"ided in Artic%e 3;2. Cn order to a%%ow the emp%oyer to "a%id%y suspend the bargaining process, there must be a "a%id 5.@ raising a %egitimate representation issue. Cn this case, the petition was fi%ed outside the #2'day freedom period$ therefore there was no %egitimate representation issue and the fi%ing of the 5.@ did not constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation. 3. *es. -he dismissa% was in "io%ation of the emp%oyee+s right to se%f'organiDation. -he dismissa% must be made pursuant to the tenets of e&uity and fair p%ay$ wherein the emp%oyer+s right to terminate the ser"ices of an emp%oyee must be e0ercised in good faith$ furthermore, it must not amount to interfering with, restraining or coercing emp%oyees in their right to se%f'organiDation. -he factua% backdrop of the Ambas+ termination re"ea%s that such was done in order to strip the union of a %eader. Admitted%y, management has the prerogati"e to discip%ine its emp%oyees for insubordination. But when the e0ercise of such management right tends to interfere with the emp%oyees+ right to se%f'organiDation, it amounts to union'busting and is therefore a prohibited act. (C-le8i- de San *!an de Le"ran $& Ass- ia"i-n -7 Em;l-#ees and Fa !l"# -7 Le"ran% '&R& 1414(1% Se;"em2er 10% 2000, Q: X was emp%oyed as sewer by a corporation engaged in the business of sewing costumes, gowns and casua% and forma% dresses. @"entua%%y, she started to fee% chest pains. =he then fi%ed a %ea"e of absence from work as the chest pains became unbearab%e. After sub,ecting herse%f to medica% e0amination, she was found to be suffering from Atherosc%erotic heart disease, Atria% 9ibri%%ation, .ardiac Arrhythmia. >pon recommendation of her doctor, she resigned from her work hoping that with a much'needed comp%ete rest, she wi%% be cured. =he %ater fi%ed a disabi%ity c%aim with the === from the @mp%oyees+ .ompensation 9und, under 5residentia% 8ecree /o. #3#, as amended. (as the sickness compensab%e) A: *es, the i%%ness is compensab%e. >nder the <abor .ode, as amended, the %aw app%icab%e to the case at bar, in order for the emp%oyee to be entit%ed to sickness or death benefits, the sickness or death resu%ting therefrom must be or must ha"e resu%ted from either HaI any i%%ness definite%y accepted as an occupationa% disease %isted by the .ommission, or HbI any i%%ness caused by emp%oyment, sub,ect to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions.F Cn other words, Efor a sickness and the resu%ting disabi%ity or death to be compensab%e, the said sickness must be an occupationa% disease %isted under Anne0 EAF the Amended Bu%es on @mp%oyees+ .ompensation$ otherwise, the c%aimant or emp%oyee concerned must pro"e that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working condition.F Cndisputab%y, cardio"ascu%ar diseases, which, as herein abo"e'stated inc%ude atherosc%erotic heart disease, atria% fibri%%ation, cardiac arrhythmia, are %isted as compensab%e occupationa% diseases in the Bu%es of the @mp%oyees+ .ompensation .ommission, hence, no further proof of casua% re%ation between the disease and c%aimant+s work is necessary. (Salm-ne $&


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Em;l-#ees1 C-m;ensa"i-n C-mmissi-n and S- ial Se !ri"# S#s"em% '&R& N-& 142)+2% Se;"em2er 2/% 2000, 1+++ CASES Q. A f%ight surgeon at 5A<, was on duty from J pm unti% 13 midnight. At around 4 pm, he %eft the c%inic to ha"e his dinner at his residence, a ;'minute dri"e away. (hi%e he was away, the c%inic recei"ed an emergency ca%% for a 5A< emp%oyee suffered from a heart attack. -he nurse on duty phoned the doctor at home to inform him of the emergency, then rushed the patient to the hospita% at 4:;2 pm. -he doctor arri"ed at 4:;1 pm. -he patient died the fo%%owing day. After in"estigation, the doctor was charged with abandonment of post whi%e on duty, and was %ater suspended for 1 months. (as this suspension %ega%) A. -he suspension was i%%ega%. Artic%e !1 of the <abor .ode H/orma% hours of (orkI pro"ides that Hea%th personne% . . . sha%% ho%d regu%ar office hours for eight H!I hours a day, for fi"e H;I days a week, exclusive of time for meals , O H=ee Art. !; ' 7ea% 5eriods$ =ec. 4, Bu%e C, Book CCC of the ?mnibus Bu%es H7ea%s and Best periodsI -hus, the !'hour work period does not inc%ude the mea% break. /owhere in the %aw may it be inferred that emp%oyees must take their mea%s within the company premises, as %ong as they return to their posts on time. 5ri"ate respondent+s act of going home to take his dinner does not constitute abandonment. HP<ili;;ine Airlines% In & $& NLRC% )02 SCRA 902 (1+++,, Q. A ,et printer operator emp%oyed at =e%ecta was dismissed from emp%oyment for dishonesty and theft of company property. .onsidering that the emp%oyee mere%y took 1; hamburger patties, a pair of boots and an a%uminum container, was dismissa% the appropriate remedy) A. /o. (hi%e the =. agrees that the emp%oyer shou%d not be re&uired to continuous%y emp%oy someone who has betrayed its trust and confidence, dismissa% wou%d not be proportionate to the gra"ity of the offense. 9urther, he is a non'confidentia% emp%oyee. 8ismissa% as a measure to protect the interests of Bespondent .ompany is unwarranted under the facts of this case. =uspension wou%d ha"e sufficed. (Ass- ia"ed La2-r Uni-ns-TUCP $& NLRC% )02 SCRA (00 (1+++,, Q. A de%i"eryman of 5etitioner .ompany fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% and non'payment of basic wages and certain monetary benefits. He was suspected of se%%ing fruits of his emp%oyer at a higher price, and pocketing the difference. -he <A found in fa"or of the emp%oyee and ordered petitioner .ompany to reinstate him with back wages, sa%ary differentia%s, 11 th month pay and ser"ice incenti"e pay. -he /<B. re"ersed the decision and ru%ed that pri"ate respondent was not entit%ed to reinstatement with back wages e0cept for the award of sa%ary differentia%s due to underpayment. A. -he =. agrees with the <A and he%d that pri"ate respondent was indeed i%%ega%%y dismissed. Ct was on%y upon his comp%aint regarding his %ow sa%ary that he was no %onger a%%owed to report for work. -his amounted to dismissa% without cause and without the re&uisite written notice. =uch circumstances make it difficu%t to sustain any a%%egation of abandonment. Abandonment, as a ,ust and "a%id cause for termination, re&uires a de%iberate and un,ustified refusa% of an emp%oyee to resume his work, coup%ed with a c%ear absence of any intention of returning to his or her work. (ith regard to the sa%ary differentia%s granted, petitioners c%aim e0emption under BA #434 H(age Bationa%iDation ActI and the Bu%es Cmp%ementing (age ?rder /os. /.B'21 and /.B'21'A, as we%% as (age ?rder /os. /.B'23 and /.B'23'A. Howe"er, regard%ess of the factua% circumstances in this case, the =. was not con"inced as the petitioners cou%d not e"en show any appro"ed app%ication for e0emption, as re&uired by the app%icab%e guide%ines issued by the .ommission. (C& Planas C-mmer ial $& NLRC% )0) SCRA 4+ (1+++,, Q. Cs due process ser"ed e"en when the decision of the <abor arbiter is based so%e%y on position papers)


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille A. 5etitioner %ikewise contends that it was not granted its right to due process, as the decision of the <A was based pure%y on position papers. -he standard of due process that must be met in administrati"e tribuna%s a%%ows a certain degree of %atitude as %ong as fairness is not ignored. PAdamson Q Adamson, Cnc. ". Amores, 1;3 =.BA 314, 3;2 H1 !4IR Hence it is not %ega%%y ob,ectionab%e, for being "io%ati"e of due process, for the <A to reso%"e a case based so%e%y on position papers, affida"its or documentary e"idence submitted by the parties. (C6P Federal Se !ri"# A8en #% In & $& NLRC% )0) SCRA ++ (1+++,, Q. (hi%e petitioner was assigned to sort out re,ects in a pri"ate respondent+s bakery, he went to the comfort room to answer the ca%% of nature, with the permission of his checker. Howe"er, when the owner saw that petitioner was not at his station, he demanded from him a written e0p%anation for abandoning his work. Ha"ing "erba%%y e0p%ained that he had to answer the ca%% of nature, petitioner no %onger submitted a written e0p%anation, be%ie"ing that his "erba% denia% wou%d suffice. Howe"er, he was suspended for 1; days. ?n another occasion, petitioner had to answer the ca%% of nature. -his time, he re&uested his fe%%ow worker to rep%ace him whi%e he was away. -he owner, howe"er, once again noticed that he was gone and demanded a written e0p%anation for his absence. 6nowing better, petitioner comp%ied with the demand. 9inding petitioner+s e0p%anation unsatisfactory, the .ompany ser"ed petitioner a notice of termination. A. 5etitioner+s act of re%ie"ing himse%f can hard%y be characteriDed as abandonment, much %ess a wi%%fu% or intentiona% disobedience of company ru%es since bowe% mo"ements are hard%y contro%%ab%e. Aside from the discomfort it causes, restraining one+s bowe% mo"ements ad"erse%y affects the efficiency and hea%th of the worker. /either cou%d it ha"e disrupted the operations of the company as to cause it irreparab%e damage. As such, answering the ca%% of nature is a "a%id reason to %ea"e the work area. H.ima2a#a- $& NLRC% )0) SCRA /99 (1+++,, Q. A room attendant of the =heraton, operated by petitioner, was dismissed for ha"ing been caught by a hote% guest with his %eft hand inside the guest+s suitcase. After being charged and terminated based on the company ru%es regarding &ua%ified theft, he fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. He reasons that he was mere%y p%acing the be%ongings of the hote% guest into the %atter+s suitcase, as they were scattered on the f%oor. (as the dismissa% i%%ega%) A. *es. 5etitioner reasons that the emp%oyee was caught in f%agrante de%icto, and is therefore a cause for dismissa%. Howe"er, absent any e"idence that wou%d substantiate such imputation against the emp%oyee, suspicions and base%ess conc%usions by emp%oyers are not %ega% ,ustification for dismissing emp%oyees. -he burden of proof to show the "a%idity of the dismissa% %ies on the emp%oyer. /otab%y, it was shown that the hote% guest %ost nothing. H 6arana= 5-"els and Res-r" C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% )0) SCRA 941 (1+++,, Q. 5etitioner was a checker in the warehouse of respondent .ompany who met an accident whi%e in the course of performing his ,ob. His hand was pinned down by a crane which resu%ted in its deformity and tota% disabi%ity of his midd%e finger. He was gi"en a month of sick %ea"e which he e0tended for another month. <ater, he disco"ered that the .ompany had terminated his ser"ices. He then fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he <A found that there was an i%%ega% dismissa%. Cn its appea% to the /<B., the .ompany a%%eged that the rea% reason why petitioner was dismissed was due to se"era% gamb%ing incidents in the work area. -his e0p%anation was accepted by the /B<., which omitted reinstatement and backwages from the award of the <A. 5etitioner points out that the issue of gamb%ing was raised on%y by the respondents upon appea%. /ot ha"ing been a%%eged in the 5osition 5apers of the respondents at the ear%iest instance, shou%d the /<B. ha"e considered the .ompany+s gamb%ing a%%egations) A. -he .ompany was a%%owed to submit EAnne0 3F which contained the gamb%ing a%%egations with the <A, there was no showing whether the /<B. ga"e the petitioner a c%ear chance to rebut the contention. .onsidering the %ateness of its submission, and the critica% fact it a%%eged, this was the %east that shou%d ha"e been done by the /<B.. -herefore, petition granted. /<B. committed gra"e abuse of discretion. <A+s decision reinstated. H Villa $& NLRC% )0) SCRA 401 (1+++,,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q. =uper"isory emp%oyees of =7. were retired prior to reaching the compu%sory age of #2 pursuant to a .BA reducing optiona% retirement to fifteen years. -hey c%aim that their signatures in conformity with their retirement from the ser"ice were secured through threats, and that the emp%oyees had no choice but no accept the benefits. (ere the emp%oyees "a%id%y retired) 8id their acceptance of benefits amount to estoppe%) A. /o the emp%oyees were not "a%id%y retired. -he mere absence of actua% physica% force to compe% them to ink their app%ication for retirement did not make it "o%untary. -hey were confronted with the danger of being ,ob%ess. -heir acceptance of benefits did not %ikewise amount to estoppe%. Cf the intention to retire is not c%ear%y estab%ished or if the retirement is in"o%untary, such is to be treated as a discharge. Cn any case, the .BA is not app%icab%e to them as it e0press%y e0c%uded super"isory positions which petitioners occupy. (San 6i8!el C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRCB *!l# 2)% 1+++, Q. =an 7igue% .orporation shut down some of its p%ants and dec%ared ;; positions as redundant, in order to stream%ine operations due to financia% %osses. .onse&uent%y, the union fi%ed se"era% grie"ance cases for the said retrenched emp%oyees, and sought the redep%oyment of said emp%oyees to other di"isions of the company. :rie"ance proceedings were conducted pursuant to the partiesK .o%%ecti"e Bargaining Agreement. -he procedure out%ined in the .BA re&uired the sett%ement of grie"ances on 1 %e"e%s ' department manager, p%ant manager, and a conci%iation board. 8uring the proceedings, many emp%oyees were redep%oyed, some accepted ear%y retirement. =an 7igue% informed the union that the remaining emp%oyees wou%d be terminated, if they cou%d not be redep%oyed. =ubse&uent%y, the union fi%ed a notice of strike with the /.7B of the 8?<@ due to a bargaining dead%ock and gross "io%ation of the .BA such as non'comp%iance with the grie"ance procedure. ?n the other hand, =an 7igue% fi%ed a comp%aint with the /<B. to dismiss the notice of strike. .an the union ho%d a strike on the grounds re%ied upon) A. -he grounds re%ied upon by the union are non'strikeab%e. A strike or %ockout may on%y be dec%ared in cases of bargaining dead%ocks and ><5. Gio%ations of the .BA, e0cept f%agrantSma%icious refusa% to comp%y with economic pro"isions sha%% not be strikeab%e. H=ec. 1, Bu%e XXCC, <. CBBI A co%%ecti"e bargaining dead%ock is the situation between the %abor and management of the company where there is fai%ure in the co%%ecti"e bargaining negotiations resu%ting in a sta%emate. -his situation is none0istent in the present case since there is a conci%iation board assigned in =tep 1 of the grie"ance machinery to reso%e the conf%icting "iews of the parties. 9or fai%ing to e0haust a%% the steps in the grie"ance machinery and arbitration proceedings pro"ided in the .BA, the notice of strike shou%d ha"e been dismissed by the /<B. and the union ordered to proceed with the grie"ance and arbitration proceedings. 7oreo"er, in abandoning the grie"ance proceedings and refusing to a"ai% of the remedies under the .BA, the union "io%ated the mandatory pro"isions of the .BA. 5arenthetica%%y, it is worthy to note that abo%ition of departments or positions in the company is one of the recogniDed management prerogati"es. HSan 6i8!el C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% )04 SCRA 1 (2 6ar < 1+++,, Q. 8ue to a%%eged ><5, se"era% emp%oyees wa%ked out from their ,obs. -he company purported%y sent them notices urging them to return to work, otherwise their ser"ices wou%d be terminated. -he emp%oyees denied ha"ing recei"ed these notices, and c%aimed that they were mere%y informed of their dismissa% and pre"ented from returning to work Hremo"a% of their machines by the companyI. (as there a "a%id case of abandonment, as a ground for dismissa%) A. Abandonment, as a ,ust and "a%id ground for dismissa%, means the de%iberate and un,ustified refusa% of an emp%oyee to resume his emp%oyment. -he burden of proof is on the emp%oyer to show an une&ui"oca% intent on the part of the emp%oyee to discontinue emp%oyment. -wo e%ements must be pro"ed: the intention of an emp%oyee to abandon and an o"ert act from which it may be inferred that the emp%oyee has no more intent to resume his work. Ct is un%ike%y that the emp%oyees abandoned their ,obs, considering the %ength of their ser"ice H12'14 yearsI. Cn fact, no o"ert act was pro"en by the company from which the intention of the emp%oyees to desist from emp%oyment may be shown. 7oreo"er, the abandonment of work does not per se se"er the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship. C- is mere%y a form of neg%ect of duty, which is in turn a ,ust cause for termination of emp%oyment. -he operati"e act that wi%% u%timate%y put an end to the re%ationship is the dismissa% of the emp%oyee, after comp%ying with the procedure prescribed by


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille %aw. Cf the emp%oyer does not fo%%ow the procedure, there is i%%ega% dismissa%. H.e Pa!lCDin8 P<ili; C!s"-ms Tail-r $& NLRC% )04 SCRA 440% 10 6ar < 1+++, Q: = was emp%oyed under an emp%oyment contract that wi%% be effecti"e for a period of 1 year, un%ess sooner terminated. -he first period was for si0 months terminab%e at the option of the emp%oyer. -he second period was a%so for si0 months but probationary in character. After working for si0 months, = was made to sign a 1'month probationary emp%oyment and %ater e0tended by another 1'month period. After a tota% emp%oyment of one year, = was dismissed on grounds of termination of contract emp%oyment. = fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. (as = "a%id%y dismissed) A: *es. Cn both periods, the company did not specify the criteria for the termination or retention of the ser"ices of =. Cf the contract was rea%%y for a fi0ed term, the emp%oyer shou%d not ha"e been gi"en the discretion to dismiss = during the one year period of emp%oyment for reasons other than the ,ust and authoriDed causes under the <abor .ode. Cn effect, the emp%oyer theoriDed that the one'year period of emp%oyment was probationary. Ct was not brought to %ight that = was informed at the start of his emp%oyment of the reasonab%e standards under which he wou%d &ua%ify as a regu%ar emp%oyee. Cn the case of Brent, the .ourt uphe%d the princip%e that when the period was imposed to prec%ude the ac&uisition of tenuria% security, they shou%d be disregarded for being contrary to pub%ic opinion. Ct was c%ear that = was hired as a regu%ar emp%oyee and his work was necessary and direct%y re%ated to the business of the company. = is considered as a regu%ar emp%oyee of the company. At any rate, e"en assuming that the origina% emp%oyment was probationary, the fact that he was a%%owed to work beyond the si0'month probationary period con"erts him to a regu%ar emp%oyee under Artic%e 3!1 of the <abor .ode. = was reinstated with backwages from the time of dismissa% to payro%% reinstatement. (Ser$idad $& Na"i-nal La2-r Rela"i-ns C-mmissi-n% )09 SCRA 4+% 10 6ar < 1+++, Q: 8 %earned from B that the %atter needed factory workers in -aiwan, but B to%d 8 that as a part of his ,ob app%ication, he shou%d gi"e a certain amount. 8 ga"e B the money but was unab%e to go to -aiwan. =e"era% other persons paid B the re&uired p%acement fee but were a%so unab%e to work abroad. -he "ictims fi%ed cases of i%%ega% recruitment in %arge sca%e H1 or more personsI and estafa. (as B gui%ty of i%%ega% recruitment and estafa) A: *es. C%%ega% recruitment is committed when the H1I offender has no "a%id %icense or authority$ and H3I he undertakes any acti"ity within the meaning of Erecruitment and p%acementF under the <abor .ode. Ct is the %ack of necessary %icense or authority that renders the recruitment acti"ity un%awfu% or crimina%. -here is i%%ega% recruitment when one purports to ha"e the abi%ity to send a worker abroad through without %icense and authority to do so. (Pe-;le $& B-rr-me-% )09 SCRA 100% 29 6ar < 1+++, Q: At the time AC>5 fi%ed a petition for certification e%ection, there was an e0isting .BA between the company and ..@A, the incumbent bargaining agent for a%% the rank and fi%e emp%oyees. -his petition was opposed by ..@A on the ground of the contract bar ru%e. AC>5 fi%ed a notice of strike citing union busting and unfair %abor practice as grounds. -he union proceeded to stage a strike, in the course of which, i%%ega% acts were perpetrated. (hen AC>5 ignored the -B? en,oining the union members to refrain from b%ocking the road, the company dismissed se"era% emp%oyees on the ground of i%%ega% strike and i%%ega% acts perpetrated in connection with the strike. AC>5 is &uestioning the %ega%ity of the dismissa% of se"era% AC>5 member emp%oyees. (as the strike i%%ega%) (as the dismissa% of the AC>5 member emp%oyees "a%id) A: -he .ourt was not persuaded by the a%%egation of union busting. -he strike staged by AC>5 was a union'recognition'strike. -he petition for certification e%ection H5.@I shou%d not ha"e been entertained because of the contract bar ru%e. A 5.@ may on%y be entertained #2 days before the e0piration of a .BA Hfreedom periodI. -he strike staged by AC>5 was i%%ega% as they formed human barricades to b%ock roads and pre"ented co'workers from entering company premises. @"en if the strike is "a%id because its ob,ect or purpose is %awfu%, the strike may sti%% be dec%ared as in"a%id where the means emp%oyed are i%%ega%. >nion officers who knowing%y participate in the commission of i%%ega% acts in a strike may be dec%ared to ha"e %ost his emp%oyment status but an ordinary striking


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille emp%oyee cannot be terminated for mere participation in an i%%ega% strike. Howe"er, there must be proof that he committed i%%ega% acts during the strike. 9or the se"erest pena%ty to dismissa% to attach, the erring strikers must be du%y identified. =imp%y referring to them as EstrikersF is not enough to ,ustify their dismissa%. -he petitioning members of AC>5 are ordered reinstated with fu%% backwages. (Ass- ia"i-n -7 Inde;enden" Uni-ns in "<e P<ili;;ines $& NLRC% )09 SCRA 21+% 29 6ar < 1+++, Q: -he origina% owners of AA. were dri"en by mounting financia% %oses to se%% the ma,ority rights of the company to 5H. -o thwart further %osses, 5H imp%emented a re'organiDationa% p%an. (orkers occupying redundant positions that were abo%ished were terminated. 5H du%y paid their separation pay and other benefits. =i0 of the union members who were terminated fi%ed a case for i%%ega% termination a%%eging that the retrenchment program was a subterfuge for union busting. -hey c%aimed that they were sing%ed out for their acti"e participation in union acti"ities. -hey a%so asserted that AA. was not bankrupt, as it has engaged in an aggressi"e scheme of contractua% hiring. (ere the union members "a%id%y dismissed) A: *es. -he condition of business %osses is norma%%y shown by audited financia% documents. Ct is the .ourt+s ru%ing that financia% statements must be prepared and signed by independent auditors. Cn the instant case, the emp%oyees ne"er contested the "eracity of the audited financia% documents presented by AA. to the <abor Arbiter, neither did they ob,ect to the documents+ admissibi%ity. Ct is on%y necessary that the emp%oyees show that its %osses increased through a period of time and that the condition of the company is not %ike%y to impro"e in the near future. -he a%%egation of union busting is a%so bereft of proof. -he records show that the position on ;1 other non'union members were abo%ished due to business %oses. -he .ourt genera%%y ho%ds &uitc%aims to be contrary to pub%ic po%icy. *et as in the instant case, as there is no showing that the &uitc%aims were e0ecuted in duress, they are binding on the parties. (Asian Al -<-l C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% )09 SCRA 41/% 29 6ar < 1+++, Q: 5C.?5 grants certain a%%owances to its emp%oyees depending on the circumstances and need for such. -he a%%owances in &uestion pertains to the fo%%owing: 1. =taffS7anager+s A%%owance: 9ree housing faci%ities to super"isory and manageria% emp%oyees assigned in Bis%ig. 8ue to shortage of housing faci%ities, the company was constrained to grant a%%owances to those who %i"e or rent houses near the "icinity of the mi%% site. 3. -ransportation A%%owance: granted to 7anagers assigned to the mi%% site who use their own "ehic%es in the performance of their duties. 1. Bis%ig A%%owance: gi"en in consideration of being assigned to the hosti%e en"ironment then pre"ai%ing in Bis%ig. -he @0ecuti"e <abor Arbiter opined that the sub,ect a%%owances formed part of the emp%oyees+ wages. .iting ,urisprudence, he conc%uded that the a%%owances shou%d be inc%uded in the computation of the emp%oyees+ base pay in determining the separation pay. -he /<B. did not share the "iew of the <abor Arbiter. Ct found that the a%%owances were contingency'based and thus not inc%uded C their sa%aries. 8id the sub,ect a%%owances form part of the petitioners+ wage) A: /o. E(ageF, as defined by the <abor .ode, may inc%ude any determination by the =ecretary of <abor in appropriate instances the Efair and reasonab%e "a%ue of board, %odging and other faci%ities customari%y furnished by an emp%oyer to his emp%oyees.F -he .ourt agrees with the ?=: that the sub,ect a%%owances were temporary and not regu%ar%y recei"ed by the petitioners. -he a%%owance gi"en to the emp%oyees in the instant case do not represent such fair and reasonab%e "a%ue because the a%%owance were gi"en by the company in %ieu of actua% housing and transportation needs whereas the Bis%ig a%%owance was gi"en in consideration of being assigned to the hosti%e en"ironment then pre"ai%ing in Bis%ig$ petitioners+ continuous en,oyment of the disputed a%%owances was based on contingencies the occurrence of which terminated such en,oyment. (6illares $& Na"i-nal La2-r Rela"i-ns C-mmissi-n% )09 SCRA 900% 2+ 6ar < 1+++, Q: A was emp%oyed by CB7 for 1# years as an @ngineer. He was informed, through a %etter, that his emp%oyment with the company was to be terminated on the grounds of habitua% tardiness and absenteeism. A%%eging that his dismissa% was without ,ust cause and due process, he fi%ed a


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille comp%iant with the 8?<@. He a%so c%aimed that he was not gi"en the opportunity to be heard and hat he was summari%y dismissed from emp%oyment based on charges which has not been du%y pro"en. CB7 denied A+s c%aims. Ct was a%%eged that A was to%d of his poor attendance record and inefficiency through the company+s interna% e%ectronic mai% system. Attached to CB7+s position paper were copies of printouts of a%%eged computer entriesSmessages sent by the company to A through the interna% emai% system. (as A "a%id%y dismissed) A: /o. Ct appears, howe"er, that A+s 8ai%y -ime Becord H8-BI and pay s%ips showed that he did not incur any une0cused absences, he was not %ate on any day and, that no deduction was made from his sa%ary on account of tardiness or absences. -he computer print outs, which constitutes the on%y e"idence of CB7, afford no assurance of their authenticity because they are unsigned Ct is true that administrati"e agencies are not bound by the technica% ru%es of procedure and e"idence in the ad,udication of cases. Howe"er, the %ibera%ity of procedure is sub,ect to %imitations imposed by basic re&uirements of due process. -he e"idence presented before the /<B. must at %east ha"e a modicum of admissibi%ity for it to be gi"en some probati"e "a%ue. -he print outs %ikewise fai%ed to show that A was a%%owed due process before his dismissa%. -he %aw re&uires an emp%oyer to furnish the emp%oyee two written notices before termination of his emp%oyment may be ordered. -hese re&uirements were not obser"ed in this case. (IB6 P<ili;;ines $& Na"i-nal La2-r Rela"i-ns C-mmissi-n% )09 SCRA 9+2% 1) A;ril 1+++, Q: B5 fi%ed with the =@. a petition for the suspension of payments and a rehabi%itation p%an. A management committee was created to o"ersee the rehabi%itation p%an. .onse&uent%y, the =@. issued an order suspending a%% actions and c%aims against B5. @mp%oyees of B5 fi%ed their respecti"e comp%aints for i%%ega% dismissa%, unfair %abor practice, and payment of separation pay. -he <abor Arbiter he%d that the order of the =@. suspending a%% action for c%aims against B5 does not co"er the c%aims of pri"ate respondents in the %abor cases because said c%aims and the %iabi%ity of B5 as the emp%oyer sti%% has to be determined, thus carrying no dissipation of the assets of petitioners. Are %abor c%aims inc%uded in the suspension order of the =@.) A: *es. -he %aw is c%ear: a%% c%aims for actions sha%% be suspended according%y. /o e0ception in fa"or of %abor c%aims is mentioned in the %aw. A%%owing %abor cases to proceed c%ear%y defeats the purpose of the automatic stay and se"ere%y encumbers the management committee+s time and resources. -he preferentia% right of workers and emp%oyees under Artic%e 112 of the <abor .ode may be in"oked on%y upon the institution of inso%"ency or ,udicia% %i&uidation proceedings. -he purpose of rehabi%itation proceedings is precise%y to enab%e the company to gain a new %ease on %ife and thereby a%%ow creditors to be paid their c%aims from its earnings. Cn inso%"ency proceedings, the company stops operations and the c%aims of creditors are satisfied from the assets of the inso%"ent company. -he present case in"o%"es rehabi%itation, not the %i&uidation, of B5 .orporation. Hence the preference of credit granted to workers is not app%icab%e. -he %abor c%aims fi%ed by the emp%oyees wi%% temporari%y be suspended during the period of the rehabi%itation p%an. (R!22er=-rld P<ili;;ines $& Na"i-nal La2-r Rela"i-ns C-mmissi-n% )09 SCRA (21% 14 A;ril 1+++, Q: = was emp%oyed by JGA. .orporation in 1 # . He retired on 1 3 when he was #3 years o%d. =ubse&uent%y, = brought a comp%aint for retirement benefits and ser"ice incenti"e %ea"e pay before the /<B. against the corporation. -he <abor Arbiter granted retirement pay to = under BA 4#J1. -he corporation cha%%enged this decision asserting that = retired a%most a year prior to the effecti"ity of the said %aw H4 January 1 1I, and thus the retirement benefits under BA 4#J1 shou%d not be app%ied retroacti"e%y. (as = entit%ed to the retirement benefits under BA 4#J1) A: /o. -he .ourt he%d in a pre"ious case that BA 4#J1 granting retirement benefits is undoubted%y a socia% %egis%ation. -here shou%d be %itt%e doubt about the fact that the %aw can app%y to %abor contracts sti%% e0isting at the time the statute has taken effect, and that its benefits can be reckoned not on%y from the date of the %aw+s enactment but retroacti"e%y to the time said emp%oyment contract ha"e started. -he aforecited doctrine was e%aborated upon by enumerating the circumstances which must concur before the %aw cou%d be gi"en retroacti"e effect: H1I the c%aimant must sti%% be an emp%oyee of the emp%oyer at the time the statute took effect$ and H3I the c%aimant has comp%ied with the re&uirements for e%igibi%ity under the statute. Cn


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille the case under scrutiny, = retired and ceased to be an emp%oyee of JGA. .orporation e%e"en months before the effecti"ity of BA 4#J1. Ct is thus decisi"e%y c%ear that the pro"isions of BA 4#J1 cou%d not be gi"en retroacti"e effect in his fa"or. (*&V& An8eles C-ns"r! "i-n C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% )09 SCRA ()4% 14 A;ril 1+++, Q: -he corporation and A<> inked a .BA effecti"e unti% 1 ;. 1J days before the e0piration of the said .BA, /A9<> fi%ed a petition for certification e%ection, which was granted by the 7ed' Arbiter. A<> interposed a 7otion to 8ismiss for fai%ure of /A9<> to ac&uire for and in beha%f of its %oca% charter affi%iates H.?55@BI, a %ega% persona%ity as a %egitimate %abor organiDation. A<> and /A9<> signed an agreement to ho%d a certification e%ection and /A9<> promised to furnish A<> a copy of its .ertificate of Begistration and other pertinent documents. ?n the same day .?55@B was issued by the 8?<@ a .ertificate of Begistration. (as the 5.@ du%y fi%ed) A: *es. Cn a pre"ious case, the .ourt he%d that a party is estopped to cha%%enge the persona%ity of a corporation after ha"ing acknow%edged the same by entering into a contract with it. Cn the present case, A<> acknow%edged the %ega% e0istence of /A9<>+s affi%iate by entering into an agreement with /A9<>. A<> a"er that their agreement with /A9<> on the ho%ding of a certification e%ection with a suspensi"e condition was not comp%ied with. .onsidering, howe"er, that /A9<> was ab%e to submit the documents re&uired by the agreement, such comp%iance retroacted to the date the agreement was signed. -he order of the 7ed'Arbiter granting the petition for the certification e%ection has become fina% in "iew of A<>+s fai%ure to appea% there from. >nder the <abor .ode, a party has the right to appea% an order a%%owing or granting a petition for certification e%ection. But the right of appea% may on%y be e0ercised within 12 ca%endar days from the receipt of the order & (Ass- ia"ed La2-r Uni-ns $& @!is!m2in8% )09 SCRA (/2% 14 A;ril 1+++, Q: A was a po%ice officer assigned to 5/5 Gigan. (hi%e he was dri"ing his tricyc%e and ferrying passengers, he was confronted by another po%ice officer about his tour of duty. A "erba% tuss%e then ensued between the two, which %ed to the fata% shooting A. ?n account of A+s death, his wife fi%ed a c%aim for death benefits with the :=C=. Cn its decision, :=C= denied the c%aim on the ground that at the time of his death, A was performing a persona% acti"ity that was not work' connected. =ubse&uent appea% to the @mp%oyees .ompensation .ommission H@..I pro"ed to be futi%e as it mere%y affirmed the decision of :=C=. -he .ourt of Appea%s, howe"er, ru%ed otherwise. Ct decided that Eas app%ied to a peace officer, A+s work p%ace is not confined to the po%ice precinct or any station, but to any p%ace where his ser"ices, as a %awman, to maintain peace and security, are re&uired. At the time of his death, A was dri"ing his tricyc%e at the town comp%e0 where the po%ice assistance center is %ocated. -here can be no dispute therefore that he met his death %itera%%y in his p%ace of work. 5o%icemen, by the nature of their functions, are deemed to be on a round'the'c%ock duty.F 7ust the acti"ity being performed at the time of death be work'connected for it to be compenesab%e) A: *es. (hi%e it agrees that po%icemen are at the beck and ca%% of pub%ic duty as peace officers and technica%%y on duty round'the'c%ock, the same does not ,ustify the grant of compensation benefits for the death of A. ?b"ious%y, the matter A was attending at the time of his death, that of ferrying passenger for a fee, was intrinsica%%y pri"ate and unofficia% in nature proceeding as it did from no particu%ar directi"e or permission of his superiors officers. -he 3J'hour duty doctrine, as app%ied to po%icemen and so%diers, ser"es more as an after'the'fact "a%idation of their acts to p%ace them within the scope of the guide%ines rather than a b%anket %icense to benefit them in a%% situations that may gi"e rise to their deaths. Cn other words, the 3J'hour doctrine shou%d not be sweeping%y app%ied to a%% acts and circumstances causing the death of a po%ice officer but on%y tot hose which, a%though not on officia% %ine of duty, are nonethe%ess basica%%y po%ice ser"ice in character. -herefore, death benefits under the @.. shou%d not be granted. ('-$ernmen" Ser$i e Ins!ran e S#s"em $& C-!r" -7 A;;eals% )0/ SCRA 41% 20 A;ril 1+++, Q: <:, JB and 5B were accused of i%%ega% recruitment by a syndicate in %arge sca%e. Ct was a%%eged that the abo"e named accused, without %icense or authority, recruited se"era% peop%e for ,ob p%acement abroad, recei"ing a p%acement fee from the recruits in e0change. -he recruits f%ew to the supposed country of emp%oyment yet had to return to the 5hi%ippines as the promised ,ob did not e0ist. -he "ictims confronted the accused, and the accused promised to refund their money. (ere the accused gui%ty of i%%ega% recruitment in a syndicate)


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille A: *es. -he .ourt he%d that the appea% %acks merit. Becruitment for o"erseas emp%oyment is not in itse%f necessari%y immora% or un%awfu%. Ct is the %ack of the necessary %icense or permit, or the engagement of prohibited acti"ities enumerated in the <abor .ode that renders such recruitment acti"ities un%awfu% or crimina%. -he accused asserted that the offense shou%d not ha"e been &ua%ified into i%%ega% recruitment by a syndicate since there was no proof that they acted in conspiracy with one another. Howe"er, the acts of the accused showed unity in purpose. ?ne wou%d "isit the house of the recruits se"era% times, con"incing them to work abroad. Another wou%d accompany the recruit to the house of the person co%%ecting the processing fee. A%% these acts estab%ished a common crimina% design mutua%%y de%iberated upon and accomp%ished through coordinated acts. Against the e"idence of the prosecution, the accused mere%y posited the defense of denia%. 8enia%s, if unsubstantiated by c%ear and con"incing e"idence, are deemed negati"e and se%f'ser"ing e"idence unworthy of credence. (Pe-;le $& '!e$arra% )0/ SCRA 111% 21 A;ril 1+++, Q: 5hi%ippine Babbit Cnc. H5BCI emp%oyed 5@ as a bus conductor. ?n 1 4;, petitioner terminated the ser"ices of 5@, prompting him to sue 5BC for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he <abor Arbiter dec%ared the dismissa% to be i%%ega% and ordered reinstatement with fu%% backwages. 5BC appea%ed to the /<B. but the appea% was dismissed, as the same was not fi%ed within the reg%ementary period. 5BC appea%ed to the ?ffice of the 5resident, which directed 5BC to reinstate 5@ but on%y pay backwages for si0 months. 5@ was paid the backwages but he was not reinstated. -hus, he mo"ed for a second writ of e0ecution on 1 !; and the payment of backwages from 1 4 Hthe date he presented himse%f for reinstatementI unti% he cou%d actua%%y be reinstated. -he /<B. granted the (rit of @0ecution. 8id the /<B. committed a gra"e abuse of discretion in modifying the amending the fina% and e0ecutory order of the ?ffice of the 5resident, and in enforcing by mere motion the fina% ,udgment of the ?ffice of the 5resident despite the %apse of se"en years) A: /o. 5BC cannot %ega%%y in"oke in this case the strict app%ication of the ru%e %imiting e0ecution of ,udgment by mere motion within a period of ; years on%y. -here ha"e been cases where the .ourt a%%owed e0ecution by mere motion e"en after the %apse of ; years. -heir common denominator in those instances was the de%ay caused or occasion by the actions of the ,udgment debtor andSor those incurred for his benefit. Cn the instant case, 5BC undu%y de%ayed the fu%% imp%ementation of the fina% decision of the ?ffice of the 5resident by f%ing numerous di%atory appea%s and persistent%y refusing to reinstate pri"ate respondent 5@. -echnica%ities ha"e no room in %abor cases where the Bu%es of .ourt are app%ied on%y in a supp%etory manner and on%y to effectuate the ob,ecti"es of the <abor .ode, and not to defeat them. 5BC can no %onger assai% the propriety of the fina% decision of the ?ffice of the 5resident issued way back in 7ay 1 4!. -he fina%ity of a decision is a ,urisdictiona% e"ent that cannot be made to depend on the con"enience of a party. ?nce a decision attains fina%ity, it becomes the %aw of the case whether or not the decision is erroneous & (P<ili;;ine Ra22i" B!s Lines% In & $& NLRC and E$an8elis"a% )0/ SCRA 191% 21 A;ril 1+++, Q: According to the prosecution, the accused, B., in"ited and con"inced se"era% peop%e to work with her as a factory worker abroad. B. promised to process the necessary papers for a p%acement fee of 5!, 222.22. (hen the agreed date of departure came, B. fai%ed to show up. -he recruits went to the 5?@A who issued a certification that B. had no %icense to recruit o"erseas workers. -he recruits then went to the po%ice and fi%ed a comp%iant for i%%ega% recruitment in %arge'sca%e. B. "ehement%y denied recruiting the comp%ainants and dec%ared that she mere%y tried to he%p them work abroad at the insistence of the comp%ainants. Cs B. gui%ty of i%%ega% recruitment) A: *es. <arge'sca%e i%%ega% recruitment has the fo%%owing e%ements: H1I -he accused undertook recruitment acti"ities or any prohibited practice under the <abor .ode. H3I He did not ha"e the %icense or authority to %awfu%%y engage in the recruitment and p%acement of workers. H1I He committed the same to two or more persons. -he prosecution e"idence pro"ed beyond reasonab%e doubt that the foregoing e%ements were present in this case. -here is no &uestion that B. did not ha"e a %icense to engage in he recruitment of workers, as she herse%f admitted, and that the crime was committed against more than three persons. -he e"idence on record be%ies her argument that she did not engage in the recruitment and p%acement of workers. -he testimonies of the recruits une&ui"oca%%y pro"e that B. promised the three ,obs abroad pro"ided


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille they wou%d pay the p%acement fee. -he fact that each of them paid the down payment is e"idence by the receipts issued and signed by B.. (Pe-;le -7 "<e P<ili;;ines $& Cas"ill-n% )0/ SCRA 2(1% 21 A;ril 1+++, Q: AA is the owner of a farm who emp%oyed the petitioners . and C. 5etitioners contended that they were "erba%%y to%d by AA to stop working and terminated their emp%oyment without informing them of the reason for their intended dismissa%. Hence, they charged AA for i%%ega% dismissa% with money c%aims. AA asserts that . and C were dismissed for "a%id causes, as they were gui%ty of insubordination, both disobeying the prescribed manner and procedure of doing their ,ob. -he <abor Arbiter ru%ed that there was no ,ust cause for termination. ?n appea%, the /<B. re"ersed the decision of the <abor Arbiter for gross insufficiency of e"idence to sustain the decision, remanding the case to the <abor Arbiter for the reception of further e"idence. (as the remand of the case to the <abor Arbiter proper) A: /o. -he remand of the case to the <abor Arbiter for the reception of e"idence has no %ega% or actua% basis. =ub,ect to the re&uirements of due process, proceedings before the <abor Arbiter are genera%%y non'%itigious, because technica% ru%es and procedures of ordinary courts of %aw do not strict%y app%y. -hus, a forma% or tria%'type hearing is not a%ways essentia%. Cn the absence of any pa%pab%e error, arbitrariness or partia%ity, the method adopted by the <abor Arbiter to decide a case must be respected by the /<B.. AA was not depri"ed of due process of %aw, the essence of which is simp%y the opportunity to be heard. Ct must be stressed that a%% the parties to the case were gi"en e&ua% opportunities to air their respecti"e positions before the <abor Arbiter. -hat AA fai%ed to fu%%y air his position by his own inaction or neg%igence does not constitute depri"ation of due process & (CaEe"e and Isa2ida $& Na"i-nal La2-r Rela"i-ns C-mmissi-n% )0/ SCRA )24% 21 A;ril 1+++, Q: A< was a seaman on board the "esse% 7SG .ast 7uskoD. His %ife%ess body was found hanging by the neck from the cei%ing of an o%d abandoned warehouse in Quebec, .anada. According to the coroner, the probab%e cause of death was asphy0iation by hanging. (hen A<+s body was f%own to 7ani%a, his father noted that the body bore se"era% bruises. -hey submitted the cada"er to the /BC for an autopsy. .onsidering that the findings of the /BC were a%% inconsistent with suicide, the father fi%ed a c%aim with the 5?@A. -he 5?@A dismissed the comp%iant of the father based on the so%id e"idence of the emp%oyer'shipping company. ?n appea%, the /<B. affirmed the ru%ing of the 5?@A. Apparent%y, both %abor bodies anchored their conc%usion on the fact that had there been fou% p%ay in"o%"ed in A<+s death, the T3, 222.22 in his pocket wou%d ha"e been taken. (as the father of A< entit%ed to his son+s death benefits) A: *es. -he emp%oyer fai%ed to ascertain the circumstances surrounding A<+s death, which was its duty to undertake as A<+s emp%oyer. =uch wi%%fu% neg%ect cannot but indicate that a through in"estigation wou%d ha"e yie%ded a resu%t ad"erse to the emp%oyer. -he records are bereft of any substantia% e"idence showing that respondent emp%oyer successfu%%y discharged its burden of pro"ing that A< committed suicide, so as to e"ade its %iabi%ity for death benefits under 5?@A+s =tandard @mp%oyment .ontract for 9i%ipino =eaman. -he records of this case are remanded to the 5?@A for the computation of the death benefits to be awarded to the father of A<. (La;id $& Na"i-nal La2-r Rela"i-ns C-mmissi-n% )0/ SCRA )4+% 2+ A;ril 1+++, Q: B was emp%oyed by the hote% as a doorman. 5rofessiona% shoppers hired by the hote% e"a%uating hote% emp%oyees recommended the transfer of BodrigueD to a non'customer'contact position because of the negati"e feedback on his manner of pro"iding ser"ices to the hote% guests. A memorandum was %ater issued transferring him to the %inen room as an attendant. He resisted the transfer and did not assume his new post at the %inen room. -he hote% terminated his emp%oyment on the ground of insubordination. -he <abor Arbiter dec%ared the dismissa% to be %ega%. ?n appea%, the /<B. re"ersed the decision of the <abor Arbiter dec%aring that the intended transfer was in the nature of a discip%inary action. -he hote% management contends that the emp%oyee+s continuous refusa% to report to his new work assignment constituted gross insubordination. (as the transfer of the emp%oyee a "a%id e0ercise of its management prerogati"e)


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille A: *es. 8isobedience to be a ,ust cause for dismissa% en"isages the concurrence of at %east two re&uisites U HaI the emp%oyee+s wrongfu% conduct must ha"e been wi%%fu% or intentiona%$ HbI the order "io%ated must ha"e been reasonab%e, %awfu%, made known to the emp%oyee and must pertain to the duties which he has been engaged to discharge. Ct is the emp%oyer+s prerogati"e, based on its assessment and perception of the emp%oyee+s &ua%ification, aptitude and competence, to mo"e him around in the "arious areas of its business operations in order to ascertain where the emp%oyee wi%% function with utmost efficiency and ma0imum producti"ity or benefit to the company. 8e%iberate disregard of company ru%es or defiance of management prerogati"e cannot be countenanced. >nti% and un%ess the ru%es or orders are dec%ared to be i%%ega% or improper by competent authority, the emp%oyees ignore or disobey them at their peri%. Cn the case at bat, the emp%oyee was repeated%y reminded not on%y by management but a%so by his union to report to work station but to no a"ai%. (?es"in P<ili;;ine PlaFa 5-"el $& Na"i-nal La2-r Rela"i-ns C-mmissi-n% )0/ SCRA /)1% ) 6a# 1+++, Q: Accused @nri&ueD promised emp%oyment in -aiwan to at %east J3 peop%e. -hey were each asked to pay processing fees ranging from 51, 142 to 5;, 222 for which no receipts were issued and to submit documents to faci%itate their tra"e% and subse&uent dep%oyment abroad. -he 5?@A issued a certification showing the @nri&ueD is not %icensed to engage in the recruitment of workers for o"erseas emp%oyment. Cn her defense, @nri&ueD c%aimed that it was her common' %aw husband who was engaged in the EbusinessF and she on%y acted as his secretary when she dea%t with the comp%ainants. =he a%%owed him to estab%ish his recruitment office at her residence. @nri&ueD c%aimed that she on%y he%ped her husband in the office for three months whi%e he was %ooking for a secretary. 5art of her duties then was to co%%ect the documents submitted by the app%icants and recei"e the money they paid as p%acement fees. Cs she gui%ty of i%%ega% recruitment in %arge'sca%e) A: *es. -he essentia% e%ements of the crime of i%%ega% recruitment in %arge'sca%e can be summariDed as fo%%ows: H1I the accused engages in acts of recruitment and p%acement of workers as defined in the <abor .ode$ H3I the accused does not ha"e a %icense or authority from the =ecretary of <abor to recruit and dep%oy workers$ and H1I the accused commits the same un%awfu% acts against three or more persons, indi"idua%%y or as a group. -he theory of the defense undu%y strains the credu%ity of the .ourt. -he comp%ainants positi"e%y identified @nri&ueD as the one who dea%t direct%y with them from the time they in&uired about the ,ob prospects abroad unti% they comp%ied with the re&uirements and fo%%owed up their app%ications. (orth reiterating is the ru%e that i%%ega% recruitment in %arge'sca%e is malum prohibitum, not malum in se, and that the fact a%one that a person "io%ated the %aw warrants her con"iction. Any c%aim of %ack of crimina% intent is una"ai%ing. HPe-;le -7 "<e P<ili;;ines $& EnriA!eF% )0/ SCRA ()+% 9 6a# 1+++, Q: .oca .o%a entered into a contract of ,anitoria% ser"ices with BJ=. .oca .o%a then hired X first, as a casua% emp%oyee$ after the casua% emp%oyment was terminated, .oca .o%a again hired X as a painter in contractua% pro,ects. He was a%so hired by BJ=, which assigned him to the .oca .o%a considering his fami%iarity with its premises. :oaded by information that .oca .o%a emp%oyed pre"ious BJ= emp%oyees who fi%ed a comp%aint against the company for regu%ariDation pursuant to a compromise agreement, X submitted a simi%ar comp%aint against .oca .o%a to the <abor Arbiter$ he inc%uded BJ= therein as a co'respondent. He no %onger reported to work and when offered by BJ= to work in other firms, he refused. He amended the comp%aint to i%%ega% dismissa% and underpayment of wages. Cs there an emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship in this case) A: /o. -he .ourt takes ,udicia% notice of the practice adopted in se"era% go"ernment and pri"ate institutions and industries of hiring ,anitoria% ser"ices on an Eindependent contractor basisF. A%though ,anitoria% ser"ices may be considered direct%y re%ated to the principa% business of an emp%oyer, the .ourt deemed them unnecessary in the conduct of the principa% business. -his ,udicia% notice rests on the assumption that the independent contractor is a %egitimate ,ob contractor so that there can be no doubt as to the e0istence of an emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship between the contractor and the worker. Ct is a%so c%ear that BJ= e0ercises contro% o"er the work of X as most of his assigned task dea%t with the maintenance and sanitation of the company premises pursuant to BJ=+s contract with the company.


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille -he .ourt ru%ed that no emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ation e0ists between X and .oca .o%a yet the %atter sha%% be ,oint%y and se"era%%y %iab%e with BJ= for the wage differentia%s and 11 th 7onth pay of X. (C- a C-la B-""lers P<ili;;ines $& NLRC% )0( SCRA 1)1% 1( 6a# 1+++, Q: Admira% Hote% hired Ba%ani as a .ost .ontro%%er. =he recei"ed a memo from the 7anaging 8irector ca%%ing her attention to se"era% "io%ation of hote% ru%es she had "io%ated such as using the phone for persona% ca%%s and entertaining "isitors during office hours, to the detriment of her regu%ar work. -he emp%oyee denied the charges %e"e%ed against her and she submitted a %etter of resignation. .onse&uent%y, she recei"ed a%% sa%aries, benefits and separation pay, and e0ecuted a &uitc%aim in fa"or of the hote%. 8id the emp%oyee "o%untari%y resign) A: *es, this is a case if "o%untary resignation. -he emp%oyee c%aims that she was constructi"e%y dismissed from her office as its %ocation was transferred from under the steps of the stairs to the kitchen. =uch transfer caused her menta% torture, which forced her to resign. Howe"er, it was not shown that her transfer was prompted by i%% wi%% of management. Cndeed, the resident manager of the hote% swore that the transfer affected not on%y the .ost .ontro% office but a%so the other offices. -he transfer on%y in"o%"ed a change in %ocation of the office. Ct does not in"o%"e a change in the emp%oyee+s position. @"en a transfer in position is "a%id when based on sound ,udgment, unattended by demotion in rank or diminution of pay or bad faith. H Admiral Real"# C-m;an# (Admiral 5-"el, $& NLRC% )0( SCRA 1/2% 10 6a# 1+++, Q: (hi%e the oi%er was anchored on port, seaman H was directed to open and c%ean the main engine. -o accomp%ish this, he had to enter a manho%e in a crouching position. After working for J consecuti"e days, he e0perienced back pains and foot swe%%ing. Howe"er, he was instructed to continue with his work unti% he was fina%%y repatriated to the 5hi%ippines where medica% e0aminations confirmed that he suffered from a s%ipped disc, which re&uired surgery. >pon hearing that the surgery wou%d cost more than 5 J2,222, the company disregarded the recommendation for surgery and instead proposed a %ess cost%y treatment. But this did not impro"e the condition of H. After se"en months, H fi%ed a comp%aint with the 5?@A against the maritime agencies for disabi%ity and medica% benefits. -he emp%oyers a%%ege that H signed a Beceipt and Be%ease in fa"or of the maritime agencies whi%e the case was pending in 5?@A, that affirmed the findings of the 5?@A that his i%%ness was work'connected. H supposed%y acknow%edged receipt of a certain amount in comp%ete and fina% sett%ement of a%% his wages, benefits and c%aims. -he maritime agencies assert that the signed Beceipt is a &uitc%aim that re%eases them from any %iabi%ity whatsoe"er. Cs the agreement "a%id) A: /o, the %aw does not consider as "a%id any agreement to recei"e %ess compensation than what a worker is entit%ed to reco"er nor pre"ent him from demanding benefits to which he is entit%ed. Ct is appa%%ing that H wou%d sett%e for a meas%y consideration of 51;, 222 which is gross%y inade&uate, that is cou%d not ha"e gi"en rise to a "a%id wai"er on the part of the disad"antaged emp%oyee. Cn order that a &uitc%aim may be "a%id, the re&uisites are: H1I there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any party$ H3I the consideration of the &uitc%aim is credib%e and reasonab%e$ and H1I that the contract is not contrary to %aw, pub%ic order, pub%ic po%icy, mora%s or good custom. But e"en assuming that the ai%ment of H was contracted prior to his emp%oyment with the maritime agency, this fact wou%d not e0cu%pate petitioners from %iabi%ity. .ompensabi%ity of an ai%ment does not depend on whether the in,ury or disease was pre'e0isting at the time of the emp%oyment but rather if the disease or in,ury is work're%ated or aggra"ated his condition. Ct is safe to presume, at the "ery %east, the arduous nature of H+s emp%oyment had contributed to the aggra"ation of his in,ury, if indeed it was pre'e0isting at the time of his emp%oyment. -herefore, it is but ,ust that he be du%y compensated for it& (6-re 6ari"ime A8en ies and Al;<a Ins!ran e $& NLRC% )0( SCRA 10+% 10 6a# 1+++, Q: -he :enera% 7anger of the -o%% way recei"ed reports that certain security personne% are in"o%"ed in mu%cting acti"ities. Acting on the comp%aint, the manager a%ong with po%ice officers staged an entrapment. Ange%es, security guard on duty in one of the e0its was caught in flagrante delicto recei"ing bribe money from an underco"er passenger pretending to i%%ega%%y transport dogs. A notice of dismissa% on the ground of serious misconduct was issued. After forma% in"estigations, dismissa% was ad"ised and Ange%es was informed of his dismissa%. Ange%es c%aimed that the entrapment was masterminded by the manager as a reta%iation for his


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille being critica% of the manager+s administration. He now c%aims separation pay. Cs he entit%ed to separation pay) A: An emp%oyee who is dismissed for ,ust cause is genera%%y not entit%ed to separation pay. Cn some cases, the .ourt awards separation pay to a %ega%%y dismissed emp%oyee on the grounds of e&uity and socia% ,ustice. -his is not a%%owed, though, when the emp%oyee has been dismissed for serious misconduct or other causes ref%ecting on his mora% character. -he act of accepting bribe money constituted serious misconduct that warrants the dismissa% from the ser"ice. (P<ili;;ine Na"i-nal C-ns"r! "i-n C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% )0( SCRA 210% 10 6a# 1+++, Q: ., a manageria% emp%oyee, was accused of se0ua%%y harassing a subordinate, =. After hearing and in"estigation, the 7anagement @"a%uation .ommittee conc%uded that the charges against . constituted a "io%ation of the 5%ant+s ru%es and regu%ations. Ct stated that, Etouching a fema%e subordinate+s hand and shou%der, caressing her nape and te%%ing other peop%e that = was the one who hugged and kissed or that she responded to the se0ua% ad"ances are unauthoriDed acts that damaged her honor.F Ct referred to the manua% of the 5hi%ippine 8ai%y Cn&uirer in defining se0ua% harassment, which defined se0ua% harassment as Eunwe%come or unin"ited se0ua% ad"ances, re&uests for se0ua% fa"ors and other "erba% or physica% conduct of se0ua% nature with any of the fo%%owing e%ements...Hinc%udingI such conduct as unreasonab%y interferes with the indi"idua%+s performance at work, or creates an intimidating, hosti%e or offensi"e working en"ironment.F . was charged with 12 days suspension without pay. . fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% suspension. -he <abor Arbiter dismissed the petition which ru%ing was affirmed by the /<B.. -he . assai%ed the fai%ure to app%y BA 4!44 in determining whether or not he actua%%y committed se0ua% harassment. (as . correct%y charged with se0ua% harassment ,ustifying his suspension) A: *es. BA 4!44 was not yet in effect at the time of the occurrence of the act comp%ained of. Cwas sti%% being de%iberated upon in .ongress. As a ru%e, %aws sha%% ha"e no retroacti"e effect un%ess otherwise pro"ided. Hence, the <abor Arbiter had to re%y on the 7@. report and the common connotation of se0ua% harassment as it is genera%%y understood by the pub%ic. A%so, as a manageria% emp%oyee, is bound by more e0acting work ethics. (hen such mora% per"ersity is perpetrated against a subordinate, there is a ,ustifiab%e ground for dismissa% based on %oss of trust and confidence. (Li2res $& NLRC% )0( SCRA /(4% 6a# 20% 1+++, Q: Cn an intra'union dispute in"o%"ing the e0amination of union accounts of a <oca% .hapter, the parties submitted the matter to the ?ffice of the Begiona% 8irector, who sustained the order for an audit to be conducted. -he C<7 union officers appea%ed the order to the 8?<@ =ecretary, who endorsed it to the Bureau of <abor Be%ations. -he B<B subse&uent%y dismissed the appea%. Cs the 8?<@ =ecretary correct in endorsing the case) A: *es. @0aminations of union accounts are e0press%y c%assified by the Bu%es of 5rocedure on 7ed'Arbitration, and a different process is pro"ided for the reso%ution of the same. According to Art. 33# of the <abor .ode, the B<B has appe%%ate ,urisdiction o"er the matter, so the 8?<@ =ecretary was correct in its endorsement of the case. (Barles $& Bi"-ni-% )00 SCRA 200% *!ne 1+++, Q: Q and < were super"isors whose ,obs in"o%"ed the o"erseeing of the withdrawa% and sorting of sacks of sugar. Cn one transaction in"o%"ing ;2,222 .%ass . sacks, %arge numbers of sacks were misp%aced, and sacks of other c%asses were mi0ed in with the %ot. As they were super"ising other operations at the time, Q and < were %a0 with their duties to see that the sacks were proper%y segregated and de%i"ered. As a resu%t, a %arge number of sacks was sto%en from the company. Q and < were subse&uent%y fired for gross neg%igence. Are they "a%id%y dismissed) A: /?. (hi%e Quimba and <agrana were partia%%y responsib%e for the unfortunate incident, their neg%igence is not gross or habitua%, and as such does not merit outright dismissa%. -hus, they wou%d be entit%ed to reinstatement, but the emp%oyees ha"e accepted the /<B.+s ,udgement for separation pay instead due to the animosity between the parties. (Na"i-nal S!8ar Re7ineries C-r;& $& NLRC% )00 SCRA 9++% *!ne 1+++,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q: B worked as the dri"er of -, the owner of >%tra Gi%%a 9ood Haus. 8uring the 7ay 1 3 e%ections, he acted as a po%% watcher for <akas'/>.8 and did not report for work for two days. 9or the past years, the - ga"e B 11 th mo. 5ay. He a%%eged that he was an emp%oyee of >%tra Gi%%a 9ood Haus, and as such, he was entit%ed to the benefits accorded to emp%oyees under the <abor .ode. (hat is B entit%ed to) A: :eniston is a persona% dri"er of -io, and as such, the company is not ob%iged to grant o"ertime pay, ho%iday pay, premium pay and ser"ice incenti"e %ea"e, inc%uding 11 th mo. pay. Howe"er, since - admitted that she has gi"en B 11th mo. pay e"ery 8ecember, it is but ,ust to award B such benefit. (Ul"ra Villa F--d 5a!s $& 'enis"-n% )0+ SCRA 1(% *!ne 1+++,& Q, a former emp%oyee of =>B/@.?, sent %etters to the company management re&uesting separation benefits for her years of faithfu% ser"ice to the company. /ear%y four months %ater, @, then 5ersonne% ?fficer of =>B/@.?, fo%%owed up and made a re"iew of Q+s case. =ubse&uent%y, Q fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%, based %arge%y on the report of @ acting in fa"or of Q. -he comp%aint was barred by prescription, but because of what had happened, @ was terminated for ha"ing pro"ided Q with the Eweapons and ammunitionF to wage a war against the cooperati"e. 9urthermore, the Board of =>B/@.? conc%uded that ad"ancing the interest of Q instead of the company, especia%%y since she di"u%ged the contents of her interna% memorandum to Q, were inimica% to the company and merited dismissa%. (as @ i%%ega%%y dismissed) A: *@=. @ was a 5ersonne% ?fficer, ho%ding a manageria% position that is considered "ested with a certain amount of discretion and independent ,udgement. =he was simp%y doing her ,ob when she re"iewed Quinto+s case, and she is not proscribed from taking the side of %abor when she makes recommendations as to what must be done in each situation. A%so, there is no e"idence that Quinto got the copy of the interna% memorandum direct%y from @scu%ano U she cou%d ha"e ac&uired it from other sources. As such, @+s actions do not &ua%ify as breach of confidence or serious misconduct. (S!ri8a- .el N-r"e Ele "ri C--;era"i$e $& NLRC% )0+ SCRA 2))% *!ne 1+++,& Q: BA #41; was passed creating a new c%assification of emp%oyee, the super"isory emp%oyee, as not being a member of the rank and fi%e but a%so not considered a manageria% emp%oyee. At around this time, the super"isory emp%oyees of =emirara .oa% decided to form their own union and inter"ene in the certification e%ections. Howe"er, the company fi%ed a motion to dis&ua%ify the super"isory emp%oyees from participating in the certification e%ections, as their functions were manageria% in nature. =hou%d they be a%%owed to participate in the certification e%ections) A: *es, they shou%d be a%%owed. -he said emp%oyees fa%% under the category of super"isory emp%oyees. /othing in the company po%icies a%ters the nature and duty of these super"isory emp%oyees to manageria%. -here is no showing that the power to discip%ine erring emp%oyees is "ested in their immediate super"isors. As such, they fa%% outside of the restriction on manageria% emp%oyees from ,oining unions and participating in certification e%ections. (Semirara C-al C-r;-ra"i-n $& Se re"ar# -7 La2-r% )0+ SCRA 2+2% *!ne 1+++, Q: .omp%ainants are deaf'mutes hired by .ompany 9 as money sorters and counters through an agreement ca%%ed, V@mp%oyment .ontract for Handicapped (orker.+ -he <abor Arbiter and /<B. ru%ed that Artic%e 3!2 was not contro%%ing as comp%ainants were hired as an accommodation to the recommendation of ci"ic oriented persona%ities whose emp%oyments were co"ered by @mp%oyment .ontracts with specia% pro"isions on duration of contract as specified under Art. !2. Hence, the terms of the contract was be the %aw between the parties. .omp%ainants a%%ege that the contracts ser"ed to prec%ude the app%ication of Artic%e 3!2 and to bar them from becoming regu%ar emp%oyees. .ompany 9 submits that comp%ainants were hired as specia% workers under Art. !2 of the <abor .ode and they ne"er so%icited the ser"ices of petitioners. (ere comp%ainants regu%ar emp%oyees) A: *es. -he enactment app%ication of Art. 3!2 of emp%oyee shou%d be gi"en bodies person. -he fact of BA 4344, the 7agna .arta for 8isab%ed 5ersons, ,ustify the the <abor .ode. =uch %aw mandates that a &ua%ified disab%ed the same terms and conditions of emp%oyment as a &ua%ified ab%e that comp%ainants were &ua%ified disab%ed persons remo"es the


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille emp%oyment contracts from the ambit of Art. 3!2, since the 7agna .arta accords them the rights of &ua%ified ab%e'bodied persons. -he task of comp%ainants was necessary and desirab%e in the usua% trade of the emp%oyer and therefore they shou%d be deemed regu%ar emp%oyees. (Bernard- $& NLRC% )10 SCRA 10/% *!l# 12% 1+++, Q: A %abor dispute arose between .ompany * and >nion A, which caused the union to fi%e a notice of stricke with the /.7B charging the company with ><5 for union'busting and "io%ations of the .BA. -his was fo%%owed by picketing and the ho%ding of assemb%ies by the union outside the gate of .ompany 5+s p%ant. -he =ecretary of <abor assumed ,urisdiction o"er the %abor dispute and certified it for compu%sory arbitration. 8uring the pendency of the %abor dispute, .ompany * agreed to se%% it+s p%ant and e&uipment to .ompany L. -he union was informed of the purchase of the p%ant. .ompany L asked the union to desist from picketing outside its p%ant. -he >nion refused petitioner+s re&uest, and .ompany L fi%ed a compa%int for in,unction. -he >nion mo"ed to dismiss the comp%aint a%%eging %ack of ,urisdiction on the part of the tria% court and that .ompany L was an a%ter ego of .ompany * and not mere%y an Einnocent by'stander.F A: An Einnocent by'stander,F who seeks to en,oin a %abor strike, must satisfy the court that its interests are tota%%y foreign to the conte0t of the %abor dispute. Ct must appear that the ine"itab%e resu%t of its e0ercise is to create an impression that a %abor dispute with which they ha"e no connection or interest e0ists between them and the picketing union or constitutes an in"asion of their rights. Cn this case, .ompany L c%ear%y has a connection with the %abor dispute as the sa%e between .ompany * and .ompany L re"ea%s a %ega% re%ation between them that cannot be ignored. (6SF Tire and R!22er% In & $& CA% )11 SCRA (04% A!8!s" 9% 1+++, Q: 7 was emp%oyed by petitioner as a truck dri"er. ?ne day, he was accused of tampering with the E"a%eF sheet and he was subse&uent%y barred from entering company premises. 7 fi%ed a comp%aint of i%%ega% dismissa% against pri"ate respondent before the /<B.. A copy of the summons was sent to petitioners by registered mai% and was du%y recei"ed and signed. -he petitioner was a%so notified of the hearing date by registered mai% but no one appeared for the petitioner. -he <abor Arbiter deemed petitioners+ non'appearance as a fai%ure to contro"ert the facts as c%aimed by 7 and decided the case ex-parte. -he petitioners a%%ege that they ne"er recei"ed copies of summons or notices and that the <abor Arbiter ne"er ac&uired ,urisdiction o"er them, as there was no "a%id ser"ice of summons. (ere the petitioners denied due process) A: /o. -he bare assertion of petitioner that the persons who signed the summons which were sent by registered mai% were Eimpostors or persons unknown to themF re&uires substantiation by competent e"idence. Cn &uasi',udicia% proceedings of the /<B., procedura% ru%es go"erning ser"ice of summons are not strict%y construed and substantia% comp%iance is therefore sufficient. 9urther, officia% duty is presumed to ha"e been performed regu%ar%y un%ess the contrary is pro"en. Cn administrati"e proceedings, due process simp%e means the opportunity to e0p%ain one+s side or seek a reconsideration of the action comp%ained of. 5etitioners were ab%e to fi%e an appea% before the /<B. of the <abor Arbiter+s decision and a party who has a"ai%ed of the opportunity to present his position cannot c%aim to ha"e been denied due process. -he .ourt a%so ru%ed that 7 was constructi"e%y dismissed when he was accused of tampering with the "a%e sheet and pre"ented from going to work. -he assertion of petitioner that 7 abandoned his work is a%so without merit as it is high%y i%%ogica% for an emp%oyee to abandon his emp%oyment and thereafter fi%e a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. @"en assuming that there was abandonment, there was non'comp%iance with the statutory re&uirement of notice$ therefore 7 is entit%ed to separation pay and backwages. (6asa8ana C-n re"e Pr-d! "s $& NLRC% )1) SCRA 9(/% ) Se;"em2er 1+++, Q: < was emp%oyed by /A5.?'<uDmart, which was managed by petitioner :arcia. A mau%ing incident occurred in the company premise in"o%"ing < and another emp%oyee. -he fo%%owing day after the incident, < submitted his written e0p%anation of the e"ent. 1 days %ater, < attempted to report for work but the company refused to admit him. < immediate%y fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% with the /<B.. After the company knew of the i%%ega% dismissa% charge against it, a memorandum was issued ordering the suspension of <. -he company asserted that < remains an emp%oyee and was mere%y suspended for a month. 5roof of this, the company presented the payro%%s where the name of < continued to be %isted as a regu%ar emp%oyee during the period


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille after the a%%eged i%%ega% dismissa%. -he company c%aimed that < abandoned his work when he fai%ed to report for work after notice of return. (as < i%%ega%%y dismissed) A: -he .ourt ru%ed that the payro%% is of doubtfu% probati"e "a%ue, as it does not contain the signature of emp%oyees as proof that they recei"ed their sa%aries for the said period. 9or a "a%id finding of abandonment, two factors must be present: H1I fai%ure to report for work without any "a%id or ,ustifiab%e reason$ and H3I a c%ear intention to se"er the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship manifested by some o"ert acts. Ct was the company who refused him entry into the work p%ace and made it impossib%e for him to return to work. 7oreo"er, the fi%ing of the comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% 4 days after the a%%eged dismissa% negates said charge. A%though fighting within company premises may be considered as a serious misconduct under Artic%e 3!3 of the <abor .ode, not a%% fights within company premises wou%d warrant dismissa%. -his is especia%%y true if the emp%oyee did not instigate the fight and it appears from the facts of the case that < was ,ust defending himse%f from the assau%t of a co'emp%oyee. -he company was ordered to reinstate < and pay backwages computed from the date of i%%ega% dismissa%. ('ar ia $& Na"i-nal La2-r Rela"i-ns C-mmissi-n% )1) SCRA 9+(% ) Se;"em2er 1+++, Q: Cn a case of i%%ega% dismissa% against the petitioner, the <abor Arbiter ru%ed that the dismissa% of 5 was i%%ega% and awarded damages, separation pay and backwages. -he company fi%ed a 7otion for Appea% and a 7otion to Beduce Appea% Bond before the /<B. reiterating that 5 "o%untari%y resigned and was not i%%ega%%y dismissed. 5etitioners argued that considering the authoriDed capita% stock of the corporation was on%y 53, 222,222.22, an award of 51, !42,222.22 as backwages a%one was e0cessi"e and initia%%y posted on%y a 5;2,222.22 cash bond. -he /<B. denied the 7otion to Beduce the Appea% Bond. -he /<B. ga"e the company three e0tensions Htota%ing 12 daysI for them to comp%y with the appea% bond re&uirement. A certain B, wife of the company+s chairman, posted the re&uired bond. *et when B %earned that she was not under any ob%igation to post the bond on beha%f of her husband, she withdrew the bond. =hou%d petitioners sti%% be made to post another bond) A: *es. =ince effecti"e%y, no appea% bond was posted by petitioners, no appea% was perfected from the decision of the <abor Arbiter, for which reason the decision sought to be appea%ed to the /<B. became fina% and e0ecutory and immutab%e. -he re&uirement of cash or surety bond to perfect an appea% from the <abor Arbiter+s monetary award is ,urisdictiona%$ non'comp%iance is fata% and renders the award fina% and e0ecutory. Ct is not an e0cuse that the bond of 53 mi%%ion is too much for a sma%% business enterprise. -he %aw does not re&uire outright payment but on%y the posting of a bond to ensure that the award wi%% e"entua%%y be paid shou%d the appea% fai%. (Bi-8eneri s 6ar:e"in8 and Resear < C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% )1) SCRA (40% 0 Se;"em2er 1+++, Q: X was emp%oyed by petitioner Bestaurante <as .onchas whi%e the %atter was in"o%"ed in a %ega% batt%e with company * o"er the %and being a%%eged%y occupied by the petitioner. .ompany * was ab%e to obtain a fa"orab%e ,udgment which e"entua%%y caused petitioner to "acate the premises. As no other suitab%e %ocation was found for petitioner to mo"e, the restaurant was forced to c%ose down, thereby resu%ting in the termination of emp%oyment of X. /o separation pay was gi"en to X based on the argument of petitioner that on%y c%osure of business not due to business %osses mandates payment of separation pay to dismissed emp%oyees. =hou%d separation be gi"en and shou%d the manager of the Bestaurante <as .onchas be he%d %iab%e as a corporate officer) A: -he .ourt ru%es that the burden of proof that business %osses actua%%y occurred rests on the emp%oyers. =ince no statements of assets and %iabi%ities certified by a .5A or accounting firm was offered, nor the corporation+s Cncome -a0 Beturn certified by the BCB was shown, such business %osses were not pro"en. As regards the %iabi%ity of the manager, genera%%y, the officers and members of a corporation are not persona%%y %iab%e for the acts done in the performance of their duties. An e0ception is when the emp%oyer corporation is no %onger e0isting and is unab%e to satisfy the ,udgment in fa"or of the emp%oyees. Cn such a case, the officers shou%d be he%d %iab%e for acting on beha%f of the corporation. (Res"a!ran"e Las C-n <as andC-r .a$id '-nFales $s& Lle8-% )14 SCRA 24% Se;"& +% 1+++,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q: X was hired by Bespondent under a 3 year contract in 6uwait. ?n%y after 1 year, howe"er, X was terminated from emp%oyment and was sent back to the 5hi%ippines. X then fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% with the <abor Arbiter. Bespondents were gi"en by the <abor Arbiter 12 days to answer the charges against. Bespondents submitted a bi%% of particu%ars instead a%%eging that X was %acking in the re&uired narration of facts constituting the causes of action. X, on the other hand, mo"ed to dec%are respondents in defau%t for fai%ing to submit their position papers. Both parties agreed that the <abor Arbiter shou%d decide on the motion on the Bi%% of 5articu%ars. -he <abor Arbiter, howe"er, dec%ared the respondents in defau%t for fai%ure to submit their position papers within the period gi"en. (ere the respondents denied due process) A: *es. -he court ru%es that there was denia% of due process since no notice or order re&uiring respondents to fi%e their position paper, nor an order informing the parties that the case was a%ready submitted for decision. -here was an utter absence of opportunity to be heard at the arbitration %e"e%. (hat the <abor Arbiter shou%d ha"e done was to ru%e on the pending motions, or at %east notify pri"ate respondents that he wou%d no %onger reso%"e their motions, and to direct them forthwith to submit within a reasonab%e time their position paper as we%% as a%% the e"idence. (5a2ana $s& NLRC% )14 SCRA 10(% Se;"em2er 1+++, Q: 5etitioner X was an Cta%ian citiDen who was the @0ec. Gice 5resident and :en. 7anager of .ompany * when he was terminated by the %atter. X then fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. .ompany * based the dismissa% of X on the ground that X fai%ed to secure his emp%oyment permit. X, on the other hand, argued that it was the duty of the company to secure his work permit during the term of his office. -he <abor Arbiter rendered a decision in fa"or of X. .ompany * howe"er appea%ed such decision to the /<B.. X now &uestions the ,urisdiction of /<B. as he is a corporate officer, it is the =@. who shou%d ha"e ,urisdiction. 8id the /<B. ha"e ,urisdiction o"er the case) A: /o. According to =ec ;HcI of 5.8. /o. 23'A, the =@. e0ercises e0c%usi"e ,urisdiction o"er contro"ersies o"er regarding the e%ection andSor designation of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of a corporation, partnership or association. Jurisdiction therefore is not which the <abor Arbiter nor the /<B.. (.e R-ssi $s& NLRC% )14 SCRA 249% Se;"em2er 1+++, Q: Bespondent X was hired by the B%ue 8airy to work as a food techno%ogist in the %atter+s %aboratory. ?ne day howe"er, whi%e attending to a c%ient outside company premises as accompanied by the company dri"er, the "ehic%e was hit by a post, as there was a typhoon. Afterwards, X was then transferred from the %aboratory to the "egetab%e processing section$ she was then barred from the %aboratory. X c%aims that she was constructi"e%y dismissed as she was e"ident%y demoted. (as X constructi"e%y dismissed from work) A: *es. -he .ourt ru%es that a%though the emp%oyer has manageria% prerogati"e to transfer personne%, such must be e0ercised without gra"e abuse of discretion. -he emp%oyer has the burden of proof to show that such transfer was not unreasonab%e, incon"enient or pre,udicia% to the emp%oyee, nor does it in"o%"e a demotion in rank or a diminution of his sa%aries, pri"i%eges and other benefits. -he company in this case, a%%eges that the reason for the transfer was %oss of trust and confidence. X howe"er, was ne"er gi"en the chance to refute such reason, nor was she notified in ad"ance of the transfer. (Bl!e .air# C-r;-ra"i-n $s& NLRC% )14 SCRA 401% Se;"em2er 1+++, Q. A check was mis'posted, resu%ting in an o"erstatement of a c%ient+s outstanding dai%y ba%ance. -he 5resident of the bank sent a %etter to petitioner to e0p%ain the mis'posting. Cnterna% auditors, after in"estigation, reported that petitioner was %iab%e, and the bank notified her that 32M of the amount wou%d be deducted from her sa%ary. >pon petitioner+s demand for a fu%%' dress in"estigation, she was informed of her pre"enti"e suspension unti% the end of the in"estigation. 5etitioner then fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% and damages. (as she i%%ega%%y dismissed) 8id fi%ing of damages amount to abandonment of work) A. *es, her pre"enti"e suspension was without "a%id cause since she was suspended outright. 5re"enti"e suspension beyond the ma0imum period amounts to constructi"e dismissa%. <ikewise, her c%aim for damages did not amount to abandonment of work. -o constitute abandonment, these shou%d concur: 1. 9ai%ure to report for work or absence without "a%id or


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille ,ustifiab%e cause$ and 3. A c%ear intention to se"er the emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship Hmore determinati"e factor manifested by o"er actsI. =he mere%y took steps to protest her indefinite suspension. Her fai%ure to report for work was e"en due to her indefinite suspension. (Premiere .e$1" Ban: $& NLRC,

1++0 CASES Q. Cn an i%%ega% dismissa% case, the <abor Arbiter ru%ed in fa"or of the worker. -he tota% monetary award was more than ?/@ 7C<<C?/ 5esos. -he emp%oyer appea%ed and posted a bond in the amount of 5422,222.22 on%y. Cn computing the monetary amount for the purpose of posting an appea% bond, the emp%oyer e0c%uded the award for damages, %itigation e0penses and attorney+s fees. Cs the emp%oyer+s computation correct) A. *es, the computation of the monetary award is correct. >nder the /<B. /ew Bu%es of 5rocedure, an appea% is deemed perfected upon the posting of the bond e&ui"a%ent to the monetary award Ee0c%usi"e of mora% and e0emp%ary damages as we%% as attorney+s fees.F -he said imp%ementing ru%e is a contemporaneous construction of Artic%e 331 of the <abor .ode by the /<B. pursuant to the mandate. -he e0c%usion of mora% and e0emp%ary damages and attorney+s fees from the computation of the monetary award has been recogniDed by the =upreme .ourt in a number of cases. (FernandeF $& NLRC% 209 SCRA 14+% *an!ar# 20% 1++0, Q. Beyna%do worked as a bus dri"er for /e%busco, Cnc.. ?n 9ebruary 3!, 1 1, the airconditioning unit of the bus which Beyna%do was dri"ing suffered a mechanica% breakdown. -he company to%d Beyna%do to wait unti% the airconditioning unit was repaired. /o other bus was assigned to Beyna%do to keep him gainfu%%y emp%oyed. Beyna%do continued reporting to his emp%oyer+s office for work, on%y to find out that the airconditioning unit had not been repaired. 7ore than si0 months e%apsed but Beyna%do was not gi"en work. He fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he /<B. ru%ed that there was no i%%ega% dismissa%. Cs the ru%ing correct) A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. >nder Artic%e 3!# of the %abor .ode, the bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not e0ceeding si0 months sha%% not terminate emp%oyment. .onse&uent%y, when the suspension e0ceeds si0 months, the emp%oyment of the emp%oyee sha%% be deemed terminated. By the same token and app%ying said ru%e by ana%ogy, if the emp%oyee was forced to remain without work or assignment for a period e0ceeding si0 months, then he is in effect constructi"e%y dismissed. -he so'ca%%ed Ef%oating statusF of an emp%oyee shou%d %ast on%y for a %ega%y prescribed period of time. (hen that Ef%oating statusF %asts for more than si0 months, he may be considered to ha"e been i%%ega%%y dismissed from the ser"ice. (ValdeF $& NLRC% 20/ SCRA 0(% Fe2r!ar# +% 1++0, Q. An emp%oyer appea%ed a (rit of @0ecution issued by the <abor Arbiter c%aiming that it had "aried the tenor of the ,udgment. -he /<B. dismissed the appea% stating that it had %ost ,urisdiction o"er the case. -he /<B. stated that an order of e0ecution is not mere%y inter%ocutory but fina% in character and that after a decision has become fina%, the pre"ai%ing party becomes entit%ed as a matter of right to its e0ecution. Cs the dismissa% of the appea% correct) A. /o, the dismissa% of the appea% is erroneous. -he /<B.+s ru%ing is based on the genera% ru%e that after a decision has become fina%, the pre"ai%ing party becomes entit%ed as a matter of right to its e0ecution, that it becomes mere%y the ministeria% duty of the court to issue the e0ecution. -his genera% ru%e cannot be app%ied, howe"er, whhere the writ of e0ecution is assai%ed as ha"ing "aried the decision. Cn this case, the emp%oyer a%%eged that the writ of e0ecution materia%%y a%tered the decision. Cf this a%%egation is correct, the appe%%ant is entit%ed to the remedy of appea%. -he /<B. is "ested with authority to %ook into the correctness of the e0ecution of the decision and to consider super"ening e"ents that may affect such e0ecution. (S'S Far Eas" L"d& V& NLRC% 20/ SCRA ))9% Fe2r!ar# 12% 1++0,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q. 9ederico was a regu%ar work poo% emp%oyee of 5/... He was emp%oyed in 1 41 and worked in "arious construction pro,ects of 5/... C/ 1 4 , he worked for a pro,ect of 5/.. in the 7idd%e @ast with a sa%ary of T3.32 per hour. After the comp%etion of the pro,ect in 1 !J, 9ederico returned to the 5hi%ippines. 5/.. then fai%ed to gi"e him work in its %oca% pro,ects. .onse&uent%y, 9ederico fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% and obtained a ru%ing in his fa"or. (hen the backwages were computed, the /<B. used 9ederico+s sa%ary rate in the 7idd%e @ast. 5/.. &uestions the correctness of the computation and c%aimed that the computation shou%d be based on 9ederico+s %oca% wage rate at the time of his transfer to the o"erseas pro,ect. 8ecide. A. -he /<B.+s computation is erroneous. 9ederico was not i%%ega%%y dismissed whi%e working in the 7idd%e @ast pro,ect. He was dismissed from the work poo% after the comp%etion of the 7idd%e @ast pro,ect. Cf 9ederico were gi"en %oca% assignments after his stint abroad, he wou%d ha"e recei"ed the %oca% wage. -his is the E%ossF which backwages aim to restore. -he computation shou%d be based on the %oca% rate. (PNCC $& NLRC% 20/ SCRA )2+% Fe2r!ar# 12% 1++0, Q. A%%eging serious business %osses, @dge Appare% imp%emented a retrenchment program by phasing out its sewing %ine for simp%e garments. -he workers assigned to this particu%ar sewing %ine were terminated. -he other %ines were maintained. Cn the i%%ega% dismissa% case fi%ed by the dismissed workers, the /<B. uphe%d the %ega%ity of the dismissa% but treated such dismissa% as due to redundancy. (as the dismissa% due to redundancy) A. /o, the dismissa% was due to a retrenchment program. Cn e0ercising its right to retrench emp%oyees, the firm may choose to c%ose a%%, or a part of, its business to a"oid further %osses or mitigate e0penses. -he fact that on%y the dismissed emp%oyees+ sewing %ine was phased out does not make their termination a case of redundancy. Bedundancy e0ists where the ser"ices of an emp%oyee are in e0cess of what wou%d reasonab%y be demanded by the actua% re&uirements of the enterprise. A position is redundant when it is superf%uous. Betrenchment, in contrast to redundancy, is an economic ground to reduce the number of emp%oyees. Cn order to be ,ustified, it must be due to business %osses which are serious, actua% and rea%. Cn this case, the phasing out of the %ine for simp%e garments and, conse&uent%y, the termination of emp%oyees assigned to such %ine, was due to serious business %osses. Hence, it constitutes retrenchment. (Ed8e A;;arel% In & $& NLRC% 20/ SCRA )0)% Fe2r!ar# 12% 1++0, Q. =imu%taneous with the fi%ing of the appea%, the appe%%ant'emp%oyer fi%ed a motion to reduce the amount of the bond. -he motion was partia%%y granted. Cn the order partia%%y granting the motion to reduce the amount of the bond, the /<B. directed the appe%%ant to post the bond within ten H12I days from receipt of the order. Cnstead of fi%ing the bond, the appe%%ant emp%oyer fi%ed a motion for reconsideration of the /<B.+s order reducing the amount of the bond. Because of the appe%%ant emp%oyer+s fai%ure to post the bond, the /<B. dismissed the appea%. Cs the /<B.+s ru%ing correct) A. *es, the ru%ing is correct. -o ha"e the bond reduced is not a matter of right on the part of the appe%%ant but %ies within the sound discretion of the /<B. upon showing of meritorious grounds. After the /<B. had e0ercised its discretion in fi0ing the bond, the appe%%ant shou%d ha"e comp%ied with it. -o fi%e a subse&uent motion seeking another reconsideration of the a%ready reduced amount of the bond is to re&uest for an e0tension of time to perfect an appea% which is prohibited. (6ERS S<-es 6an!7a "!rin8% In & $& NLRC% 20/ SCRA /4(% Fe2r!ar# 2(% 1++0, Q. Juana is a worker in 8e% 7onte 5hi%., Cnc.. -he company ru%es pro"ide for an Absence (ithout 5ermission HA(?5I 5o%icy. Cf the worker intends to be absent from work, he shou%d first fi%e an app%ication for %ea"e and wait for its appro"a% before going on %ea"e. -he first offense is punishab%e by ora% reprimand$ 3nd offense U written reprimand$ 1rd offense U 1'4 days suspension$ Jth offense U !'1; days suspension$ ;th offense U 1#'12 days suspension$ and #th offense U dismissa%. 9rom 1 3'1 J, Juana incurred ;4 A(?5. (ithout initia%%y pena%iDing Juana for her past A(?5, the company dismissed her from ser"ice in 1 J. HaI Cs the dismissa% "a%id) HbI .an Juana be considered to ha"e abandoned her ,ob due to her intermittent absences without permission)


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille A. HaI /o, the dismissa% is not "a%id. -he ru%e is that an emp%oyer+s power to discip%ine its workers may not be e0ercised in an arbitrary manner as to erode the constitutiona% guarantee of security of tenure. Cn this case, the company ru%es pro"ide for a graduation of pena%ties for "io%ation of the A(?5 po%icy. @"en granting that Juana incurred pre"ious A(?5s as far back as 1 3, the company shou%d ha"e initia%%y pena%%iDed her with reprimand or suspension for her pre"ious A(?5s instead of dismissing her outright from ser"ice. HbI /o, Juana did not abandon her ,ob. Abandonment, as a ,ust and "a%id ground for termination, means the de%iberate, un,ustified refusa% of an emp%oyee to resume his emp%oyment. -he burden of proof is on the emp%oyer to show a c%ear and de%iberate intent on the part of the emp%oyee to discontinue emp%oyment. -he intent cannot be %ight%y inferred from certain e&ui"oca% acts. 9or abandonment to be a "a%id ground for dismissa%, two e%ements must be pro"ed: the intention of an emp%oyee to abandon, coup%ed with an o"ert act from which it may be inferred that the emp%oyee has no more intent to resume hisSher work. Cn this case, these e%ements are not present. (.el 6-n"e P<ili;;ines% In & $& NLRC% 20( SCRA (1% 6ar < 9% 1++0, Q. @rnesto was emp%oyed by Ba%iwag -ransit as a bus dri"er. ?n 7ay 32, 1 !1, the bus dri"en by @rnesto was hea"i%y damaged in an accident with two other "ehic%es. @rnesto was EgroundedF and was ad"ised by Ba%iwag -ransit to wait for the resu%t of the po%ice in"estigation and the actions that may be taken by the owners of the other "ehic%es. @rnesto paitient%y waited. Bea%iDing that he has waited too %ong, @rnesto on 8ecember 11, 1 !# re&uested Ba%iwag -ransit to reinstate him. Ba%iwag -ransit forma%%y informed him to %ook for another ,ob because the management has terminated his ser"ices on account of the "ehicu%ar accident. ?n /o"ember 1;, 1 2, @rnesto fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he %abor arbiter dismissed the comp%aint on the ground that @rnesto+s action is barred by prescription since it was fi%ed more than four years from the accrua% of the cause of action on 7ay 32, 1 !1. Cs @rnesto+s action barred by prescription) A. /o, the action is not barred. -he four year period shou%d not be reckoned from the time of the accident on 7ay 32, 1 !1 because @rnesto was not yet considered terminated at that time. He was mere%y EgroundedF and ad"ised to wait. @rnesto+s cause of action accrued on%y in 8ecember 1 !# when ba%iwag -ransit forma%%y dismissed him from the ser"ice. Hence, the action fi%ed on /o"ember 1 2 had not yet prescribed. (6end-Fa $& NLRC% 20( SCRA 91% 6ar < 9% 1++0, Q. Jose, a married man, was emp%oyed as a teacher by Hagonoy Cnstitute. <ikewise working as a teacher for Hagonoy Cnstitute was Ar%ene, a%so married. Cn the course of their emp%oyment, Jose and Ar%ene fe%% in %o"e and had a re%ationship. After comp%ying with the procedura% re&uirements, Hagonoy terminated the ser"ices of the coup%e. Cs the dismissa% "a%id) A. *es, the dismissa% is "a%id. -he i%%icit re%ationship between Jose and Ar%ene can be considered immora% as to constitute ,ust cause to terminate the coup%e. -o constitute immora%ity, the circumstances of each particu%ar case must be considered and e"a%uated in %ight of the pre"ai%ing norms of conduct and app%icab%e %aws. Cn the present case, the gra"ity of the charges against the coup%e stem from their being married and at the same time teachers. -eachers must adhere to the e0acting standards of mora%ity and decency. A teacher, both in hisSher officia% and persona% conduct, must disp%ay e0emp%ary beha"ior. HeSshe must free%y and wi%%ing%y accept restrictions on hisSher conduct that might be "iewed irksome by ordinary citiDens. -eachers must abide by a standard of persona% conduct which not on%y proscribes the commission of immora% acts, but a%so prohibits beha"ior creating a suspicion of immora%ity because of the harmfu% impression it might ha"e on students. (San"-s $& NLRC% 20( SCRA 11(% 6ar < /% 1++0, Q. 5hi%ippine Air%ines terminated the ser"ices of two f%ight stewards for their a%%eged in"o%"ement in currency smugg%ing in Hong 6ong. Cnstead of fi%ing an i%%ega% dismissa% case with the <abor Arbiter, the workers fi%ed with the /<B. H.ommissionI a petition for in,unction. -he /<B. issued a temporary mandatory in,unction en,oining 5A< to cease an desist from enforcing its memorandum of dismissa%. -he /<B. further ru%ed that the fi%ing of an i%%ega% dismissa% case


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille with the <abor Arbiter was not an ade&uate remedy for the workers. correct)

Cs the /<B.+s ru%ing

A. /o, the /<B.+s ru%ing is erroneous. -he power of the /<B. to issue an in,uncti"e writ originates from Eany %abor disputeF, i.e. a case between the contending parties before the %abor arbiter. Cn the present case, there is no %abor dispute yet between the workers and 5A< since there has yet been no i%%ega% dismissa% comp%aint fi%ed with the %abor arbiter. -he petition for in,unction direct%y fi%ed before the /<B. is in rea%ity an action for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he petition shou%d ha"e been fi%ed with the %abor arbiter who has the origina% and e0c%usi"e ,urisdiction o"er termination disputes. -he <abor .ode does not pro"ide b%anket authority to the /<B. or any of its di"isions to issue writs of in,unction, considering that the /ew Bu%es of 5rocedure of the /<B. makes in,unction on%y an anci%%ary remedy in ordinary %abor disputes. (PAL $& NLRC% 20( SCRA/(2% 6ar < 20% 1++0, Q. -he factory workers of =ime 8arby used to work from 4:J; a.m. to 1:J; p.m. with a 12' minute paid Eon ca%%F %unch break. Cn 1 3, =ime 8arby issued a memorandum to a%% factory workers ad"ising them of a change in work schedu%e. -he new work schedu%e e%iminated the 12'minute paid Eon ca%%F %unch break and ga"e the workers a one'hour unpaid %unch break. >nder the new schedu%e, the workers wi%% sti%% work for eight hours per day. -he workers fi%ed a comp%aint for unfair %abor practice. 8id the company commit any unfair %abor practice when it re"ised the work schedu%e) A. /o, the company did not commit any unfair %abor practice. -he right to fi0 the work schedu%es of the emp%oyees rests principa%%y on their emp%oyer. >nder the o%d schedu%e, the workers cou%d be ca%%ed upon to do ,obs during their 12'minute paid %unch break. >nder the new schedu%e, the workers were gi"en a one'hour %unch break without any interruption from their emp%oyer. -hus, there is no need to compensate the workers for this period. =ince the new schedu%e app%ies to a%% emp%oyees in the factory whether union members or not, it is not discriminatory. Ct cannot be said that this new scheme pre,udices the workers+ right to se%f' organiDation. Hence, there is no unfair %abor practice in this case. Q. =hou%d the appea% bond be posted within the ten H12I day reg%ementary period for fi%ing an appea% from the <abor Arbiter+s decision) A. As a genera% ru%e, yes. (hen the ,udgment in"o%"es a monetary award, an appea% by the emp%oyer may be perfected on%y upon posting of a cash or surety bond in an amount e&ui"a%ent to the monetary award in the ,udgment appea%ed from. .omp%iance with the re&uirement of posting a bond is both mandatory and imperati"e as the perfection of an appea% within the reg%ementary period is ,urisdictiona%. Cn a growing number of cases, howe"er, the =upreme .ourt has re%a0ed the stringent app%ication of the ru%e concerning the posting of the appea% bond within the ten H12I day reg%ementary period as a re&uirement for the perfection of an appea%. -he =upreme .ourt has a%%owed the fi%ing of a motion for reduction of bond in %ieu of the appea% bond within the reg%ementary period for fi%ing an appea%. Cn such case, the appea% bond may be fi%ed after the %apse of the reg%ementary period and after the reso%ution of the motion to reduce the amount of the bond . (Al -ser- $& NLRC% 200 SCRA 12+% 6ar < 2/% 1++0, Q. Boberto was a dri"er of 5hi%tranco who was assigned to the <egaspi .ity'5asay .ity route. He was dismissed from the ser"ice. He fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% before the /<B.+s /ationa% .apita% region Arbitration Branch in 7ani%a. 5hi%tranco fi%ed a 7otion to 8ismiss stating that the comp%aint shou%d ha"e been %odged with the /<B.+s Begiona% Arbitration Branch in <egaspi .ity not on%y because Boberto was a resident thereof but a%so because the %atter was hired, assigned, and based in <egaspi .ity. 8ecide. A. -he 7otion to 8ismiss must be denied. -he &uestion of "enue pertains to the tria% and re%ates more to the con"enience of the parties rather than upon the substance and merits of the case. 5ro"isions on "enue are intended to assure con"enience for the p%aintiff and his witnesses and to promote the ends of ,ustice. -he /ew Bu%es of 5rocedure of the /<B. cited by 5hi%tranco speaks of the comp%ainant+s workp%ace, e"ident%y showing that the ru%e is intended for the e0c%usi"e benefit of the worker. -his being the case, the worker may wai"e said benefit. 7oreo"er, since Boberto was assigned to <egaspi .ity'5asay .ity route, the fi%ing of the


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille comp%aint with the /ationa% .apita% Begion Arbitration Branch was proper, 7ani%a being considered as part of Boberto+s workp%ace. (P<il"ran - Ser$i e En"er;rises% In & $& NLRC% 200 SCRA 909% A;ril 1% 1++0, Q. 7ario was hired to work on board the passenger cruise "esse% ?dyssey for 13 months as uti%ity man. (hen he boarded the "esse%, he was unaware that there was an e0isting animosity between the 9i%ipino crew and the :reek crew. ?ne day, a heated argument occurred between 7ario and a :reek deck steward, Lakkas, which resu%ted in a scuff%e between the two. Lakkas pushed 7ario who fe%% hitting his head against the stee% mo%ding of the door. 7ario suffered a cut in the head. 5rior to this incident, Lakkas and the other :reek workers continuous%y ridicu%ed 7ario. -he night before the incident, Lakkas threatened to pour hot coffee on 7ario+s head. 7ario reported the abuses to the ship captain but the %atter ,ust b%amed 7ario for ,oining the ship. Because of his fear that further troub%e may erupt between him and the :reek crew, 7ario %eft the ship. (hen he was repatriated to the 5hi%ippines, he fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he %abor arbiter dismissed the comp%aint on the ground that 7ario "o%untari%y signed off from the "esse%. Cs the ru%ing correct) A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. .onstructi"e dismissa% e0ists when there is a &uitting because continued emp%oyment is rendered impossib%e, unreasonab%e or un%ike%y. Cn this case, 7ario &uit because he feared for his %ife and his fear was we%% founded. His decision to %ea"e the ship was not "o%untary but was impe%%ed by a %egitimate desire for se%f'preser"ation. -he ship captain, as the genera% agent of the ship owner, cou%d be he%d responsib%e for fai%ing to make the workp%ace safe for 7ario. -his is a c%ear case of constructi"e dismissa%. (Sin8a S<i; 6ana8amen" P<ils&% In & $& NLRC% 200 SCRA /+2% A;ril 14% 1++0, Q. 5C=C is a du%y %icensed security agency. Ct hired @scobin and se"era% other security guards to work as guards in the premises of Basi%an 5%antations, Cnc. in Basi%an, 7indanao. @scobin and his companions were residents of Basi%an and heads of fami%ies. After working for fi"e years as guards in the p%antation, @scobin and his group were p%aced under reser"ed or f%oating status. -his was due to the reduction of the security force ordered by Basi%an 5%antations, Cnc.. <ater, the guards p%aced on reser"ed or f%oating status were instructed by registered %etter to report to 5C=C Head ?ffice in 7etro 7ani%a for posting to 5C=C c%ients within 7etro 7ani%a. -he guards did not rep%y. A second %etter was sent but the guards %ikewise fai%ed to rep%y. 5C=C sent indi"idua% %etters to the guards ordering them to e0p%ain why no discip%inary action shou%d be taken against them for fai%ing to comp%y with 5C=C+s order. -he guards did not send their answers to 5C=C. 5C=C dismissed the guards on the ground of insubordination or wi%%fu% disobedience to %awfu% orders of their emp%oyer. 8uring the proceedings before the <abor Arbiter, the guards ,ustified their inabi%ity to comp%y with 5C=C+s order to report to the head office in 7etro 7ani%a, saying: they were residents of Basi%an, ha"e fami%ies of their own in Basi%an, ha"e ne"er tra"e%ed beyond Gisayas and 7indanao, not pro"ided by 5C=C with fare money as they cannot, on their own, finance their tra"e% from Basi%an to 7ani%a. Assuming the a%%egations of the guards were true, was the dismissa% "a%id) A. /o, the dismissa% was not "a%id. 8isobedience, to be a ,ust cause for termination, must be wi%%fu% and per"erse menta% attitude rendering the emp%oyee+s act inconsistent with proper subordination. A wi%%fu% or intentiona% disobedience ,ustifies dismissa% on%y when the ru%e, order or instruction is H1I reasonab%e and %awfu%, H3I sufficient%y known to the emp%oyee, and H1I connected with the duties which the emp%oyee has been engaged to discharge. -he reasonab%eness and %awfu%ness of a ru%e depend on the circumstances of each case. Beasonab%eness pertains to the kind or character of directi"es and commands and to the manner in which they are ade. Cn this case, the order to report to the 7ani%a office fai%s to meet this standard. Ct was gross%y incon"enient for the guards who were residents and heads of fami%ies in Basi%an. -he guards were not pro"ided with funds to defray their transportation and %i"ing e0penses. -he dismissa% in this case was too harsh a pena%ty for the insubordination which was neither wi%%fu% nor intentiona%. -he guards+ fai%ure to answer 5C=C+s show'cause %etters does not negate this conc%usion as 5C=C granted other guards a second chance to e0p%ain, an opportunity it denied @scobin and his group. (Es -2in $& NLRC% 20+ SCRA 40% A;ril 19% 1++0,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q. 8ri"ersSsa%esmen and truck he%pers of a softdrinks merchandiser fi%ed a case for i%%ega% dismissa%, underpayment of wages, and other c%aims. -he <abor Arbiter decided, among others, that the emp%oyer had not comp%ied with the minimum wage re&uirements. Cn arri"ing at this conc%usion, the <abor Arbiter refused to inc%ude the commissions paid to the workers in determining comp%iance with the minimum wage re&uirement. As part of their compensation, the workers recei"ed commissions per case of softdrinks so%d. Cs the <abor Arbiter+s ru%ing correct) A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. -he definition of the term EwageF in the <abor .ode e0p%icit%y inc%udes commissions. (hi%e commissions are incenti"es or forms of encouragement to inspire workers to put a %itt%e more industry on their ,obs, sti%% these commissions are direct remunerations for ser"ices rendered. -here is no %aw mandating that commissions be paid on%y after the minimum wage has been paid to the worker. -he estab%ishment of a minimum wage on%y sets a f%oor be%ow which an emp%oyee+s remuneration cannot fa%%, not that commissions are e0c%uded from wages in determining comp%iance with the minimum wage %aw. (Iran $& NLRC% 20+ SCRA 4))% A;ril 22% 1++0, Q. Cn a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% and unfair %abor practices, ,udgment was rendered in fa"or of Buda <abor >nion. -he <abor Arbiter ordered the company, Buda @nterprises to reinstate the indi"idua% comp%ainants and to pay them fu%% backwages. -he decision became fina% and e0ecutory and a writ of e0ecution was issued. 5arce%s of %and a%%eged%y be%onging to Buda @nterprises, but %ater found to be registered under the names of .o -uan, =. Ang, J. <im, and @ :otamco, were %e"ied upon. >pon %earning of such %e"y, .o -uan and his three other re%ati"es fi%ed an >rgent 7otion to Quash the (rit of @0ecution c%aiming that they ho%d "a%id and %awfu% tit%e to the said properties by "irtue of the E@0tra',udicia% =ett%ement and =a%e of the @state of the 8eceased @di%berto =orianoF e0ecuted by the heirs. /one of the heirs, e0cept <ourdes =oriano, the proprietress and manager of Buda @nterprises, were parties in the %abor case. -he motion was granted. -he workers appea%ed and asked the .ommission to order the <abor Arbiter to imp%ead the mo"ants, praying that the sa%e between the mo"ants and Buda @nterprises be dec%ared "oid. Cs the /<B. competent to determine the %ega%ity of the sa%e) A. /o. -he power of the /<B. to e0ecute its ,udgment e0tends on%y to properties !nA!es"i-na2l# 2el-n8in8 to the ,udgment debtor. Cf the property under %e"y does not be%ong to the ,udgment debtor in the /<B. case, it cou%d not be %e"ied upon by the sheriff for the satisfaction of the ,udgment therein. @"en upon a mere prima facie showing of ownership by the third'party c%aimant, if the third party c%aim does not in"o%"e nor grows out of a %abor dispute, a separate action for in,uncti"e re%ief against such %e"y may be maintained in court. Cf there is suspicion that the sa%e of properties was not in good faith, i.e. was made in fraud of creditors, the /<B. is incompetent to make a determination . -he task is ,udicia% and the proceedings must be ad"ersary. (C- T!an $& NLRC% 20+ SCRA 419% A;ril 22% 1++0, Q. -he Begiona% (age Board for Begion X issued (age ?rder /o. BX'21. -hree corporations fi%ed app%ications for e0emption as Edistressed estab%ishmentsF under :uide%ines /o. 1 issued by the Begiona% (age Board. >nder the Begiona% (age Board+s guide%ine, a corporation is a Edistressed estab%ishmentF if it is engaged in an industry that is Edistressed due to conditions beyond its contro%.F -his criterion is different from the criterion %aid down in the guide%ines promu%gated by the /ationa% (ages and 5roducti"ity .ommission. =hou%d the app%ications be granted pursuant to the Begiona% (age Board+s guide%ines) A. /o, the app%ications shou%d be denied. -he %aw grants the /(5., not the Begiona% (age Board, the power to Eprescribe the ru%es and guide%inesF for the determination of minimum wage and producti"ity measures. (hi%e the Begiona% (age Board has the power to issue wage orders, such wage orders are sub,ect to the guide%ines prescribed by the /(5.. =ince the Begiona% (age Board+s :uide%ine /o. 1 was not appro"ed by the /(5. and is contrary to /(5.+s guide%ines, the said guide%ine issued by the Begiona% (age Board is inoperati"e and cannot be used by the %atter in deciding on the app%ications for e0emption. (Nasi;i" L!m2er C-m;an#% In & $& N?PC% 20+ SCRA //(% A;ril 2(% 1++0, Q. Girginia was an emp%oyee of Judy 5hi%ippines, Cnc.. Because of her erroneous assortment and packaging of 3,#!2 doDens of infant wear, the company dismissed her from emp%oyment on


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille the ground of gross neg%igence. Girginia committed the infraction for the first time. dismissa% "a%id)

Cs the

A. /o, the dismissa% is in"a%id. :ross neg%igence imp%ies a want or absence of or fai%ure to e0ercise s%ight care or di%igence, or the entire absence of care. Ct e"inces a thought%ess disregard of conse&uences without e0erting any effort to a"oid them. Artic%e 3!3 HbI of the <abor .ode re&uires that such neg%ect must not on%y be gross, it shou%d be Egross and habitua% neg%ectF. -he pena%ty of dismissa% is &uite se"ere here since the worker committed the infraction for the first time. (*!d# P<ili;;ines% In & $& NLRC% 20+ SCRA (99% A;ril 2+% 1++0, Q. Cn an i%%ega% dismissa% case fi%ed by security guards of =cout =ecurity Agency, the %abor arbiter he%d Bosewood, Cnc., the principa%, ,oint%y and se"era%%y %iab%e with the security agency for wage differentia%, backwages, and separation pay. -he %abor arbiter stated that Bosewood was %iab%e as the guards+ indirect emp%oyer under Arts. 12#, 124, and 12 of the <abor .ode. Bosewood appea%ed c%aiming that it had no participation in the i%%ega% dismissa% of the guards. Assuming Bosewood+s c%aim is true, shou%d the %abor arbiter+s ru%ing be re"ersed) A. *es, the %abor arbiter+s ru%ing shou%d be re"ersed. >nder the <abor .ode, an emp%oyer is so%idari%y %iab%e for %ega% wages due security guards 7-r "<e ;eri-d -7 "ime "<e# =ere assi8ned "- i" by its contracted security agency. Howe"er, in the absence of proof that the emp%oyer itse%f committed the acts constituti"e of i%%ega% dismissa% or conspired with the security agency in the performance of such acts, the emp%oyer s<all n-" 2e lia2le for backwages andSor separation pay arising as a conse&uence of such un%awfu% termination. (R-se=--d Pr- essin8% In & $& NLRC% 2+0 SCRA 400% 6a# 21% 1++0, Q. Cn an i%%ega% dismissa% case, the <abor Arbiter uphe%d the "a%idity of a retrenchment program imp%emented by a mining company. As basis for the ru%ing, the <abor Arbiter took E,udicia% noticeF of the economic difficu%ties suffered by the mining sector. Cs the ru%ing correct) A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. Jurisprudence prescribes the minimum standards necessary to pro"e the "a%idity of a retrenchment: HaI the %osses e0pected must be substantia% and not mere%y de minimis in e0tent$ HbI the substantia% %osses apprehended must be reasonab%y imminent$ HcI the retrenchment must be reasonab%y necessary and %ike%y to effecti"e%y pre"ent the e0pected %osses$ and HdI the a%%eged %osses, if a%ready incurred, and the e0pected imminent %osses sought to be foresta%%ed must be pro"ed by sufficient and con"incing e"idence. Cn this case, the retrenchment cannot be considered "a%id on the basis of the E,udicia% noticeF taken by the <abor Arbiter. (Anin- $& NLRC% 2+0 SCRA 40+% 6a# 21% 1++0, Q. Cnc%uded in a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% is a c%aim for night shift differentia%s. -he emp%oyer did not deny that the comp%ainant rendered night shift work. -he %abor arbiter dismissed the c%aim for night shift differentia%s because the comp%ainant a%%eged%y fai%ed to substantiate his c%aim for night shift differentia%s. Cs the ru%ing correct) A. /o, the ru%ing is erroneous. -he fact that the comp%ainant neg%ected to substantiate his c%aim for night shift differentia%s is not pre,udicia% to his cause. -he burden of pro"ing payment rests on the emp%oyer. -he worker+s c%aim of non'payment of this benefit is a negati"e a%%egation which need not be supported by e"idence. -he worker cannot ade&uate%y pro"e the fact of non'payment of the night shift differentia%s since the pertinent emp%oyee fi%es, payro%%s, records, and other simi%ar documents are not in his possession but in the custody and abso%ute contro% of petitioner. By choosing not to fu%%y and comp%ete%y disc%ose information to pro"e that it had paid a%% the nights shift differentia%s due the worker, the emp%oyer fai%ed to discharge the burden of proof. (Na"i-nal Semi -nd! "-r .is"ri2!"i-n% L"d& V& NLRC% 2+1 SCRA )40% *!ne 2/% 1++0, Q. After the <abor Arbiter dismissed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%, the worker appea%ed. -he emp%oyer was not furnished a copy of the memorandum of appea%. -hus, the emp%oyer was not aware of the appea% and did not participate in the appea% interposed by the worker. (ithout the emp%oyer+s participation, the /<B. re"ersed the <abor Arbiter+s decision and ru%ed in fa"or of the appe%%ant worker. Cs the decision "a%id)


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille A. /o, the /<B.+s decision is nu%% and "oid. Ct is a cardina% ru%e in %aw that a decision or ,udgment is fata%%y defecti"e if rendered in "io%ation of a party'%itigant+s right to due process. -he fau%t %ies with the /<B. and not with the appe%%ant worker. (hi%e the /ew Bu%es of 5rocedure of the /<B. re&uire proof of ser"ice of the appea% on the other party, non' comp%iance therewith wi%% present no obstac%e to the perfection of the appea% nor does it amount to a ,urisdictiona% defect to the /<B.+s taking cogniDance thereof. (hi%e the %aw e0cuses the appe%%ant from notifying the other party of the appea%, no reason can be gi"en by the /<B. that wou%d e0empt it from informing the %atter of the appea% and gi"ing it an opportunity to be heard. -he case shou%d be set for further proceedings to afford the emp%oyer the opportunity to be heard. (P<ili;;ine Na"i-nal C-ns"r! "i-n C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% 2+2 SCRA 2//% *!l# 10% 1++0, Q. Cn their answer to a case for i%%ega% dismissa%, the emp%oyer fi%ed position papers supported by affida"its. =ubse&uent%y, the <abor Arbiter ordered the company to pay wage differentia%s and other benefits. -hey appea%ed to the /<B. by fi%ing a supp%ementa% memorandum to correct and amp%ify inade&uate a%%egations and certain omissions. Cn this appea%, the seek to introduce new e"idence to pro"e that there was no emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship. =hou%d the /<B. admit new e"idence) A. /o. Hearings had a%ready been schedu%ed, yet the emp%oyer chose mere%y to submit position papers. As such, the company had e"ery opportunity to submit before the %abor arbiter the e"idence which they sought to adduce before the /<B.. (San"-s $& NLRCB *!l# 2)% 1++0, Q. 5etitioner was emp%oyed as Accounting 7anager entrusted with the e"a%uation and assessment of contacts. A contractor comp%ained that petitioner was asking two thousand pesos for e"ery contract the contractor gets from the company. 5etitioner admitted ha"ing accepted money on four different occasions. -he company terminated petitioner on this ground. (as she "a%id%y dismissed) A. *es, the company+s re%iance on petitioner+s assessment of contracts was based primari%y on trust and confidence. Her acceptance of money, e"en if "o%untary on the contractor+s part, casts doubt on her integrity. Ha"ing occupied a manageria% position, petitioner maybe dismissed on the ground of %oss of trust and confidence. @"en if she was a first'time offender, a company may resort to acts of se%f'defense against a manageria% emp%oyee who has breached their trust and confidence. 9urthermore, each of the four occasions is treated as a separate offense$ hence, mi%itating her p%ea of first infraction. (Villan!e$a $& NLRCB *!l# 2(% 1++0, Q. 5etitioners were dismissed from ser"ice after they were asked by the company to go through drug'tests, as the company recei"ed information that they were smoking something HVshabu+I inside the work premises. 5etitioners and the company submitted their respecti"e position papers on the incident. -he <abor Arbiter found the dismissa% based on the position papers as "a%id which the /<B. affirmed. .an a fu%%'b%own tria% be dispensed with by the %abor arbiter) A. *es. Bu%es of e"idence in courts sha%% not be contro%%ing in any case brought before the commission HArt. 331, <.I. -he <abor .ode a%%ows the %abor arbiter and /<B. to decide the case based on position papers and other documents. -he ho%ding of a tria% is discretionary on the %abor arbiter and cannot be demanded as a matter of right by the parties. (S!areF $& NLRCB *!l# )1% 1++0, Q. A super"isory emp%oyee %abor organiDation was issued a charter certificate by a nationa% federation to which the company+s rank and fi%e union was a%so affi%iatedW with. Ct fi%ed a petition for certification e%ection, opposed by the company because the union was a%%eged%y composed of both super"isory and rank and fi%e emp%oyees since both unions are affi%iated with the same federation. =hou%d the petition for certification e%ections be granted) A. *es. -he affi%iation of two %oca% unions in a company with the same nationa% federation is not a negation of their independence Has unionsI since in re%ation to the emp%oyer, the %oca% unions are considered as principa%s whi%e the federation is deemed as their agent. -he %oca%s are separate from each other and their affi%iation with the same federation wou%d not make them


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille members of the same %abor union. A super"isory organiDation is prohibited from ,oining the same federation as that of the rank and fi%e organiDation on%y if two conditions are present: 1. -he B Q 9 emp%oyees are direct%y under the authority of super"isory emp%oyees and 3. -he nationa% federation is acti"e%y in"o%"ed in union acti"ities in the company. (.LSU 6edi al Cen"er $& La8!esmaB A!8!s" 12% 1++0, Q. 5ri"ate respondents were emp%oyed by 5A< with a sa%ary of 51,!#2. -hey got a sa%ary increase of 5J22Smo. for a tota% month%y compensation of 53,3#2 under the CBA. =ubse&uent%y, BA ##J2 was passed raising the minimum wage of worker. -heir sa%aries were ad,usted again by adding 512J pursuant to the BA thus their tota% gross pay amounted to 53,;#;. After four months, they were promoted and their basic pay of 51,!#2 was raised to 53,122Smo. p%us the .BA wage increase of 5J22Smo. thereby making their gross pay to 53,422Smo.. -he emp%oyees were not satisfied with their gross pay, in"oking the 512J wage increase under BA ##J2. 5A< howe"er refused c%aiming that the increase of 5JJ2 which is the difference between their new basic sa%ary and their o%d basic sa%ary H53,122'1,!#2I was sufficient comp%iance with the BA. -hus respondents instituted an action against 5A< for "io%ations of BA ##J2. Cs the sa%ary increase of the emp%oyees sufficient comp%iance with BA ##J2) =hou%d the .BA increase be credited to the wage increase under the BA) A. /o. =ec. 4 of the BA prohibits the diminution of e0isting benefits and a%%owances by workers. .onse&uent%y, it was improper and not a%%owed by %aw for petitioner to app%y or consider as comp%iance, with the mandated wage hike of its workers, the sa%ary increases corresponding to their promotion in rank. >n%ike the (age ?rder /os. ; and # in the Apex ruling, there is no creditabi%ity pro"ision in BA ##J2. Ct was not the intention of .ongress to credit sa%ary increases by reason of .BA wage ad,ustments or promotions in rank for the mandated wage increase. (PAL $& NLRCB Se;"& )%1++0, Q. .omp%aints for i%%ega% dismissa% were fi%ed against respondent. =ummons and notices of hearings were sent to the respondent which were recei"ed by its bookkeeper. -hereafter, the %abor arbiter rendered a ,udgment by defau%t after finding that the respondent tried mere%y e"aded a%% the summons and notices by refusing to c%aim its mai%s. Bespondent contends that the he was not "a%id%y ser"ed with summons since the bookkeeper cannot be considered an agent under the Bu%es of .ourt and thus the %abor arbiter ne"er ac&uired ,urisdiction o"er respondent. 8id the %abor arbiter ac&uire ,urisdiction o"er respondent) A. *es. 5rocedura% ru%es are %ibera%%y construed and app%ied in &uasi',udicia% proceedings. =ubstantia% comp%iance in this case is considered ade&uate. -he bookkeeper can be considered an agent because his ,ob is integrated with the corporation. H Pa2-n $& NLRC% Se;"& 24%1++0, Q. .an a company, dissatisfied with the decision of the <abor Arbiter, fi%e a 7otion to Amend the ?rder of the <abor Arbiter more than a month after the date of issuance of the ?rder) A. /o. -o a%%ow the amendment of the order wi%% resu%t in the circum"ention of =ec. 14 of the Bu%es of 5rocedure of the /<B. which pro"ide that E/o 7otion for Beconsideration of any order or decision of the <abor Arbiter sha%% be a%%owed.F -o permit this wou%d on%y a%%ow the petitioner to "io%ate the statutory 12'day period re&uirement for appea%. HS <erin8 Em;l-#ees La2-r Uni-n $& NLRC% Se;"& 29%1++0, Q. Bespondent was first hired by =7. Hengaged in the manufacture of g%assI for a period of J months to repair and upgrade its furnace. 12 days after his first contract ended, he was again hired to drain another furnace for 1 months. Cs he a pro,ect emp%oyee) A. *es. -here are two kinds of pro,ect emp%oyees: 1.-hose emp%oyed in a pro,ect usua%%y necessary or desirab%e in the usua% trade or business H>/?8 in >-?BI of the emp%oyer but is separate and distinct from the other undertaking of the company$ or 3.-hose not >/?8 in >-?B but is a%so distinct and separate from the other undertaking of the company. But both ,obs begin and end at determined or determinab%e time. Cn the case at bar, the emp%oyee fa%%s under the second category. -he process of manufacturing g%ass re&uires a furnace which is to


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille be repaired on%y after being used continuous%y for "arying period of ;'12 years. -herefore, the ,ob of the respondent is a pro,ect not >/?8 in >-?B. HS6C $& NLRC% O "-2er (%1++0, Q. 5etitioner was emp%oyed as an assistant credit and co%%ection manager. 9rom the start, he was informed that those not e%igib%e for membership in the bargaining unit are not entit%ed to .BA benefits, but to benefits at %east e&ui"a%ent or higher than that pro"ided in the .BA. =ubse&uent%y, petitioner was diagnosed with pu%monary disease, prompting him to app%y for optiona% retirement as pro"ided by the .BA. He wished to retire on Ju%y 1#,1 3 but was asked by the company to change it to Apri% 12,1 3. -he emp%oyee, due to urgent need, agreed, for which he recei"ed 5122,222 as ad"ances on his retirement pay. .ou%d the emp%oyee a"ai% of the optiona% retirement benefit in the .BA) .ou%d the emp%oyer "ary the effecti"e date of retirement) A. *es, a%though manageria% emp%oyees are not co"ered by the .BA, the emp%oyer "o%untari%y agreed to grant them benefits at %east e&ui"a%ent or higher than that pro"ided in the .BA. -hus, this agreement is the app%icab%e retirement contract under the <abor .ode. 7oreo"er, the emp%oyer may "ary the effecti"e date of retirement as petitioner assented to the change, in consideration for an ad"ance of his retirement pay. =o %ong as the agreement is "o%untary and reasonab%e, it is "a%id. (6ar"ineF $& NLRC% O "-2er 12% 1++0, Q. Bespondent emp%oyee was a truck dri"er who was dismissed because he a%%eged%y dro"e whi%e drunk after he chase an office personne% with a knife. -he incident resu%ted to the damage of the ten'whee%er truck he dro"e. -he emp%oyee on%y reported the incident on 7arch 1 1, though it happened on 8ecember 1 3. 5rior to the accident, he was a%ready caught stea%ing diese% fue% from the company. As a resu%t of these actions, he was dismissed for serious misconduct. (as the dismissa% "a%id) .an the company re%y on past offenses to ,ustify the dismissa%) A. /o, the re%iance by petitioner corporation on his past offenses to ,ustify his dismissa% is una"ai%ing. -he correct ru%e has a%ways been that such pre"ious offenses may be used as "a%id ,ustification for dismissa% from work on%y if the infractions are re%ated to the subse&uent offense upon which basis the termination is decreed. -he "ehicu%ar accident causing damage to the truck is not a ,ust cause for dismissa%. -he pena%ty of dismissa% is gross%y disproportionate to the offense of dri"ing through reck%ess imprudence resu%ting in damage to property. He was %ikewise depri"ed of due process as he was not afforded amp%e opportunity to be heard. Cf after the thirty'day period the emp%oyee does not gi"e his e0p%anation of what happened, he must again be sent a notice of dismissa% stating the particu%ar acts constituting the ground for dismissa% and an in&uiry why he did not gi"e his e0p%anation. (La Carl-"a Plan"ers Ass- ia"i-n $& NLRC% O "-2er 2(% 1++0, Q. 5A< entered into a ser"ice agreement with =-@<<AB .orp., a corporation in the business of ,ob contracting ,anitoria% ser"ices. After the agreement e0pired, 5A< ca%%ed for a bidding but in the meantime a%%owed =-@<<AB to maintain the ,anitoria% contract. =ubse&uent%y, 5A< sent a %etter to =-@<<AB informing them that the contract wou%d no %onger be renewed. =-@<<AB, terminated their ser"ices, so respondent emp%oyees fi%ed a case for i%%ega% dismissa% against 5A< and =-@<<AB. -he /<B. affirmed the decision of the %abor arbiter finding the dismissa% i%%ega%. (as there an emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship e0isting between 5A< and respondents) And were they i%%ega%%y dismissed) A. /o, there is no emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship between 5A< and the respondents. 5A< is not engaged in %abor'on%y contracting e"idenced by the ser"ice agreement that it wou%d be =-@<<AB who wi%% emp%oy the ,anitors. 5A< was engaged in permissib%e ,ob contracting and the emp%oyees were emp%oyees of =-@<<AB not 5A<. Howe"er, the emp%oyees were i%%ega%%y dismissed by =-@<<AB. -hey were regu%ar emp%oyees not pro,ect emp%oyees. A pro,ect emp%oyee must be emp%oyed in a pro,ect distinct, separate and identifiab%e from the main business of the emp%oyer and its duration must be determined or determinab%e. (hi%e the ser"ice agreement may ha"e had a specific term, =-@<<AB disregarded it and repeated%y renewed the agreement and continued hiring the respondents for thirteen years. H PAL& V& NLRC% N-$& +% 1++0,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q. =e"era% security guards of =entine% =ecurity, assigned to 5HC<A7 were found to ha"e been i%%ega%%y dismissed. .an 5HC<A7 be made %iab%e for the payment of backwages and separation pay of the i%%ega%%y dismissed emp%oyees) A. *es. A%though an indirect emp%oyer shou%d not be made %iab%e without a finding that it had committed or conspired in the i%%ega% dismissa% H osewood rulingI, in the case at bar the e0oneration of 5HC<A7 was not inc%uded in the 8C=5?=C-CG@ 5?B-C?/ of the .ourt+s decision despite the fact that it was c%ear%y stated in the body of the decision that they were e0onerated. -he decision did not comp%ete%y e0onerate 5HC<A7 which, as an indirect emp%oyer is so%idari%y %iab%e with =entine% for the comp%ainants+ unpaid ser"ice incenti"e %ea"e pursuant to Art. 12#, 124 and 12 of the <abor .ode. =hou%d the contractor fai% to pay the wages of its emp%oyees in accordance with %aw, the indirect emp%oyer is ,oint%y and se"era%%y %iab%e with the contractor, but such responsibi%ity shou%d be understood to be %imited to the e0tent of work performed under the contract, in the same manner and e0tent that he is %iab%e to the emp%oyees direct%y emp%oyed by him. HSen"inel Se !ri"# $& NLRC% N-$& 1/%1++0, Q. 5roducer+s Bank was p%aced by the .entra% Bank under a conser"ator to protect its assets. (hen the retired emp%oyees sought the imp%ementation of the .BA regarding their retirement p%an and uniform a%%owance, the conser"ator ob,ected, resu%ting in an impasse between the bank and the union. =hou%d the .BA pro"isions be imp%emented, despite the bank+s status) A. *es. -he conser"ator cannot rescind a "a%id and e0isting contract and the .BA is the %aw between the contracting parties. A%though the emp%oyees are a%ready retired, retirement does not affect their emp%oyment status when it in"o%"es a%% rights and benefits due them. -he retirement scheme was part of their emp%oyment package and the benefits under the scheme constituted a continuing consideration for ser"ices rendered and effecti"e inducement to remain in the company. -he emp%oyees were not p%eading for the company+s generosity but were demanding their rights under the .BA. HPr-d! er1s Ban: $& NLRC% N-$& 1/%1++0, Q. After negotiations fai%ed to produce any agreement, the e0c%usi"e bargaining agent of .oca' .o%a decided to fi%e a notice of strike. .onci%iation hearings were conducted but were una"ai%ing. -he union conducted a strike "ote on Apri% 1J, which shoed that the members were in fa"or of conducting a strike. ?n Apri% 32, the union staged the strike. -he company fi%ed a petition to dec%are the strike i%%ega% as it was staged without obser"ing the mandatory se"en'day strike ban and that it was staged in bad faith. -he company then fired a%%eged union officers by "irtue of the i%%ega% strike. (as the strike %ega%) (as the termination of the emp%oyees Ha%%eged%y, union officersI "a%id) A. -he strike was i%%ega% for fai%ure to obser"e the mandatory re&uirements of Artic%es 3#J and 3#; of the <abor .ode. -he fai%ure of the union to obser"e the 4'day strike ban made the strike i%%ega%. (hi%e the strike "ote was conducted around 4:12 am to !:J; am and the strike he%d on Apri% 32 was around !:12 am, the .i"i% .ode states that in computing a period, the first day sha%% be e0c%uded and the %ast day inc%uded$ hence the fai%ure to obser"e 4 days. Howe"er, the dismissa% of the strikers was not "a%id. -he emp%oyees were mere union members and not officers who shou%d not be dismissed un%ess they knowing%y participate in i%%ega% acts during a strike. A%though these emp%oyees signed the .BA, nowhere in these documents can it be found that the cited emp%oyees signed it as union officers. -heir acti"e participation in the negotiations did not render them union officers. HCCBPI P-s"mi> ?-r:ers Uni-n $& NLRC% N-$& 2(%1++0, Q. A case for i%%ega% dismissa% was fi%ed against ?r%ando 9arms :rowers Association, an informa% association of %andowners engaged in the production of e0port &ua%ity bananas. .an an unregistered association be considered an emp%oyer independent%y of the respecti"e members it represents) A. *es, being an unregistered association and ha"ing been formed so%e%y to ser"e as an affecti"e medium for dea%ing co%%ecti"e%y with another company is not an e%ement of an emp%oyee'emp%oyer re%ationship. -he <abor .ode does not re&uire an emp%oyer to register before he may come within the pur"iew of the said %aw. (Orland- Farms 'r-=ers Ass- ia"i-n $& NLRC% N-$& 29%1++0,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q. Bespondent emp%oyee was recruited for emp%oyment with :u%f .atering .ompany in =audi as a waitress. (hen she was dep%oyed to =audi, she was made to wash dishes, cooking pots and utensi%s, ,anitoria% work and other unre%ated ,obs in 13'hour shifts without o"ertime pay. 8ue to the strenuous work, she was confined in a housing faci%ity during which, she was not paid her sa%aries. =he worked again after getting we%% but was not paid her compensation. =ubse&uent%y, she was hospita%iDed and went through surgica% operations, again without compensation. =he was then dismissed on the ground of i%%ness without any separation pay or sa%ary payment for the periods she was not a%%owed to work. =he fi%ed a comp%aint before 5?@A against petitioner for underpaid sa%aries and damages. (as she i%%ega%%y dismissed) Cs the emp%oyee entit%ed to the payment of underpaid sa%aries) A. =he was i%%ega%%y dismissed because the manner by which she was terminated was in "io%ation of the <abor .ode since her i%%ness was not prohibited by %aw nor was it pre,udicia% to her hea%th as we%% as that of her co'emp%oyees HArt. 3!JI. Her i%%ness was not e"en contagious -unne% =yndromeI. As for the time she was hospita%iDed and she was not gi"en any compensation, the Vno work'no pay+ ru%e does not app%y since that period was due to her i%%ness which was c%ear%y work're%ated. (Tri;le Ei8<" In"e8ra"ed Ser$i es $& NLRC% .e & )% 1++0, Q. 8oes =ection J, Bu%e G of the /<B. /ew Bu%es of 5rocedure re&uire the <abor Arbiter to propound c%arificatory &uestions to the parties in order to determine whether a forma% hearing is necessary) A. -here is no %ega% ,ustification for a mandatory interpretation. A reading of =ec J Bu%e G of the /ew Bu%es of 5rocedure of the /<B. readi%y shows that c%arificatory &uestions may be propounded to the parties at the discretion of the <A. Aside from emp%oying the word EmayF which denotes discretion negating a mandatory or ob%igatory effect, the pro"ision e0press%y states that it is discretionary on the part of the <A. (R.S Tr! :in8 $s NLRC% 2+4 SCRA NLRC, Q. 7e%chor, a ta0i dri"er under the boundary system, met a "ehicu%ar accident. After fi%ing a report to the office of respondents, he was a%%eged%y ad"ised to stop working and ha"e a rest. He thus fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%. -he company maintains that 7e%chor was not i%%ega%%y dismissed, there being in the first p%ace no emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship between them. Cs there an emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship under the boundary system) A. -he emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship was deemed to e0ist. H Martine! v" #$ C% -he re%ationship of ta0i owners and ta0i dri"ers is the same as that between ,eepney owners and ,eepney dri"ers under the Eboundary systemF. -he ta0i operator e0ercises contro% o"er the dri"er. Cn 7artineD " /<B. this court a%ready ru%ed that the re%ationship of ta0i owners and ta0i dri"ers is the same as that between ,eepney owners and ,eepney dri"ers under the Eboundary system.F Cn both cases the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship was deemed to e0ist, "iD: E-he re%ationship between ,eepney ownersSoperators on one hand and ,eepney dri"ers on the other under the boundary system is that of emp%oyer'emp%oyee and not of %essor'%essee.000 -hus, pri"ate respondent were emp%oyees 000 because they had been engaged to perform acti"ities which were usua%%y necessary or desirab%e in the usua% trade or business of the emp%oyer. (Pa8!i- Trans;-r" C-r;-ra"i-n $ NLRC% 2+4 SCRA /9, Q. 7onera% Anda% app%ied with : Q 7 5hi%s. Cnc. for an o"erseas emp%oyment as a domestic he%per in Biyadh 6=A. =he was hired for a term of 3 years H1 1'1 1I at a month%y basic sa%ary of T322.22. Howe"er, she was repatriated on 11 Jan 1 3. >pon her repatriation she fi%ed a comp%aint before the 5?@A for i%%ega% dismissa%, non'payment and underpayment of sa%aries. Cmp%eaded as co'respondent in the comp%aint was @mpire Cnsurance HpetitionerI, in its capacity as the surety of : Q 7. Cs @mpire so%idari%y %iab%e for the payment of the emp%oyee+s monetary c%aims)


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille A. *es. 5etitioner is so%idari%y %iab%e with its principa%. (hen @mpire entered into suretyship agreement with : Q 7 5hi%s Cnc it bound itse%f to answer for the debt or defau%t of the %atter. (here the surety bound itse%f so%idari%y with the principa% ob%igor, the former is so dependent on the principa% debtor such that the surety is considered in %aw as being the same party as the debtor in re%ation to whate"er is ad,udged touching the ob%igation of the %atter, and the %iabi%ities are interwo"en as to be inseparab%e. -he purpose of the re&uired bond is to insure that the rights of the o"erseas are "io%ated by their emp%oyer recourse wou%d sti%% be a"ai%ab%e to them against the %oca% companies that recruited them for the foreign principa%" (Em;ire Ins!ran e C-m;an# $ NLRC% 2+4 SCRA 2/), Q. 5ri"ate respondent is =amue% <. Bang%oy was a production super"isor and radio commentator of the 8LJ.'A7 radio station in <aoag .ity, owned by 7B.. Bang%oy subse&uent%y app%ied for a %ea"e of absence in order to run for Board 7ember in C%ocos /orte. -he company %ater on informed him that, as a matter of company po%icy, any emp%oyee who fi%es a certificate of candidacy for any e%ecti"e nationa% or %oca% office wou%d be considered resigned from the company. Bang%oy nonethe%ess ran, but %ost. /either was he permitted to return to work. Cs 7B.+s po%icy that any emp%oyee who is running for e%ecti"e pub%ic position sha%% be considered to ha"e "o%untari%y terminated his emp%oyment re%ations "a%id) A. -he po%icy is ,ustified. (orking for the go"ernment and the company at the same time is c%ear%y disad"antageous and pre,udicia% to the rights and interest not on%y of the company but the pub%ic as we%%. Cn the e"ent that the emp%oyee %oses in the e%ection, the impartia%ity and co%d neutra%ity of an emp%oyee as broadcast persona%ity is suspect, thus readi%y eroding and ad"erse%y affecting the confidence and trust of the %istening pub%ic to emp%oyer+s station. As such, the dismissa% is ,ustified. An emp%oyee may be dismissed for wi%%fu% disobedience of the %awfu% orders of his emp%oyer in connection with his work. (6anila Br-ad as"in8 C-m;an# $ NLRC% 2+4 SCRA 40/, Q. (hat are the re&uirements for a "a%id c%osure due to retrenchment) A. -he fo%%owing re&uirements must be met to ,ustify retrenchment. 9irst, the %oss shou%d be substantia% and not mere%y de minimis. =econd, the %oss must be reasonab%y imminent, percei"ed ob,ecti"e%y and in good faith by the emp%oyer. Cn other words, there shou%d be a certain degree of urgency for the retrenchment. -hird, the retrenchment must be reasonab%y necessary and %ike%y to effecti"e%y pre"ent the e0pected %osses. 9ourth, the emp%oyer shou%d ha"e taken other measures prior or para%%e% to retrenchment to foresta%% %osses, so retrenchment may on%y be undertaken as a %ast resort. 9ina%%y, the a%%eged %osses if a%ready rea%iDed, and the e0pected imminent %osses to be foresta%%ed must be pro"en by sufficient e"idence. (S"ainless S"eel C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% 11 6ar < 1++0, Q. Gictoria Abri% was emp%oyed by 59..C in different capacities from 1 !3'1 !!, unti% she went on maternity %ea"e. >pon her return in 1 ! , she disco"ered that another person had been appointed to her former position. /e"erthe%ess, she accepted another position as e"idenced by a contract which stipu%ated that her emp%oyment wou%d be probationary for a period of # months. After the period e%apsed, she continued to work unti% she and her emp%oyer entered into another emp%oyment contract for a period of 1 year, after which her emp%oyment was terminated. Abri% fi%ed a case for i%%ega% dismissa%. 59..C c%aims that her appointment had been fi0ed for a specific pro,ect, and shou%d therefore be considered as causa% or contractua% emp%oyment under Artic%e 3!2 of the <abor .ode. (as Abri%Ks termination "a%id) Cs she a regu%ar emp%oyee) A. Artic%e 3!1 of the <abor .ode a%%ows the emp%oyer to secure the ser"ices of an emp%oyee on a probationary basis U a%%owing the emp%oyer to terminate the %atter for ,ust cause or upon fai%ure to &ua%ify in accordance with reasonab%e standards set forth by the emp%oyer at the time of his emp%oyment. A probationary emp%oyee is one who is on tria% by an emp%oyer during which the emp%oyer determines whether or not he is &ua%ified for permanent emp%oyment. 5robationary emp%oyees, notwithstanding their %imited tenure, are a%so entit%ed to security of tenure. -hus, e0cept for ,ust cause as pro"ided by %aw, or under the emp%oyment contract a probationary emp%oyee cannot be terminated. >nder Artic%e 3!2 of the <abor .ode, there are 1 kinds of emp%oyees: regu%ar, pro,ect and casua% emp%oyees. (ith respect to contractua% emp%oyees, stipu%ations in emp%oyment


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille contracts pro"iding for term emp%oyment are "a%id when the period was agreed upon knowing%y and "o%untari%y by the parties without force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the emp%oyee, and absent any other circumstances "itiating his consent, or where is satisfactori%y appears that the emp%oyer and emp%oyee dea%t with each other in more or %ess e&ua% terms. -he present emp%oyment contract entered into initia%%y pro"ides that the period of emp%oyment is for a fi0ed period. Howe"er, the succeeding pro"isions contradicted the same when it pro"ided that respondent wou%d be under probationary status. :i"en the ambiguity in the contract, and fo%%owing the pronouncement in Gi%%anue"a ". /<B. H12 =ept. 1 !I, where a contract of emp%oyment, being a contract of adhesion, is ambiguous, any ambiguity therein shou%d be construed strict%y against the party who prepared it. 9urthermore, a%% %abor contracts shou%d be construed in fa"or of the %aborer, pursuant to Artic%e 1423 of the .i"i% .ode. -hus, notwithstanding the designation made by 59..C, ha"ing comp%eted the probationary period and a%%owed to work thereafter, Abri% became a regu%ar emp%oyee who may be dismissed on%y for ,ust or authoriDed causes under the <abor .ode. Hence, the dismissa%, premised on the e0piration of the contract, is i%%ega%. HP<il& Federa"i-n -7 Credi" C--;era"i$es $& NLRC% )00 SCRA (2% 11 .e em2er 1++0, Q. X was dismissed by her emp%oyer, 9-H. >pon her dismissa%, 9-H withhe%d 1; days worth of her sa%ary, and app%ied it to a X+s persona% %oan to the company+s genera% manager. Both the %abor arbiter and the /<B. appro"ed the deduction of the amount of the persona% %oan from X+s sa%ary. Cs this action of the %abor arbiter correct) A. Artic%e 314 of the <abor .ode %imits the ,urisdiction of %abor arbiters to: HaI unfair %abor practice cases$ HbI termination disputes HcI if accompanied by a c%aim for reinstatement, cases in"o%"ing wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of emp%oyment HdI c%aims for actua%, mora%, e0emp%ary and other forms of damages arising from the emp%oyer' emp%oyee re%ations HeI cases arising from "io%ations of Artic%e 3#J of the <abor .ode, inc%uding &uestions on the %ega%ity of strikes and %ockouts HfI a%% other c%aims from emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ations, inc%uding those of persons in domesticShouseho%d ser"ice in"o%"ing an amount not e0ceeding 5;,222 regard%ess of whether accompanied by a c%aim for reinstatement He0cept for c%aims of @mp%oyees .ompensation, ===, 7edicare and maternity benefitsI As the persona% %oan did not arise from the emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship, said %oan is not within the ambit of the <abor ArbiterKs ,urisdiction. 7oreo"er, fo%%owing Artic%e 314 of the <abor .ode, if a c%aim does not fa%% within the e0c%usi"e origina% ,urisdiction of the %abor arbiter, the /<B. cannot ha"e appe%%ate ,urisdiction therein. -hus, the garnishment of @spinoKs sa%ary was disregarded. HF--d Traders 5-!se $& NLRC% )00 SCRA )/0% 21 .e em2er 1++0, Q. Cn a case for i%%ega% dismissa%, the <abor Arbiter found the dismissa% of X un,ustified, and ordered the emp%oyer to reinstate X with fu%% backwages. ?n appea% by the company, the /<B. re"ersed the %abor arbiter+s decision, in effect finding the termination %ega%. Howe"er, the /<B. ordered the emp%oyer to pay X+s wages from 3; January 1 1 Hdate of fi%ing the appea% with the /<B.I up to 31 =eptember 1 1 Hpromu%gation of the /<B. decisionI, pursuant to Artic%e 331 of the <abor .ode. >nder Artic%e 331 of the <abor .ode, the emp%oyer found to ha"e i%%ega%%y dismissed an emp%oyee is re&uired to reinstate the emp%oyee either actua%%y or through payro%% at the emp%oyerKs option. 8oes this re&uirement need e0ecution of enforcement) ?r was the <AKs decision immediate%y se%f'e0ecutory) A. (hi%e the interpretation of Artic%e 331 has been di"ergent, the .ourt in the 1 4 5ioneer .ase %aid down the doctrine that henceforth an award or order for reinstatement is se%f' e0ecutory, and does not re&uire a writ of e0ecution, much %ess a motion for its issuance. Artic%e 33J on%y app%ies to fina% and e0ecutory decisions which are not within the co"erage of Artic%e 331. -hus, the emp%oyer was bound to either re'admit X or inc%ude him in the payro%%, and inform X of its choice in order to enab%e him to act according%y. 9ai%ing to e0ercise these options, the company must pay his sa%ary, which automatica%%y accrued from notice of the <AKs order unti% its


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille re"ersa% by the /<B.. In"erna"i-nal C-n"ainer Terminal Ser$i es% In & $& NLRC )00 SCRA ))9 (21 .e em2er 1++0, Q. @duardo 9e%ipe, emp%oyee of Hyundai @ngineering and .onstruction .o., through its %oca% agent ?manfi%, perished in an accident. Hyundai deposited 1J,J22 7a%aysian Binggit as 9e%ipeKs death benefits in the 7e%acca %abor office. -his was done pursuant to =ection ! of 7a%aysiaKs %abor %aw, which pro"ides that death benefits in a %ump sum e&ua% to J; months earnings HT34, 23.23I or 7B 1J,J22 sha%% be awarded, whiche"er is %ess. 9e%ipeKs widow a%%eged that the amount shou%d be >=T34, 23.23, and that the deposit made by Hyundai to the 7e%acca %abor office did not constitute payment. (hat amount is the 9e%ipe fami%y entit%ed to) A. -he 9e%ipeKs are entit%ed to 7B 1J,J22, in comp%iance with the pro"isions of 7a%aysiaKs %abor %aw. A manning agency cannot be fau%ted for fo%%owing app%icab%e foreign %aw. As a resu%t, ?manfi% has discharged its monetary ob%igation to 7rs. 9e%ipe. H Oman7il In"erna"i-nal 6an;-=er .e$"& C-r; $& NLRC% )00 SCRA 494 %22 .e em2er 1++0, Q. X was one of the 3 emp%oyees of :andara 7i%% =upp%y. Cn 9ebruary 1 ;, X did not report to work for 3 weeks, and when he returned, he was informed that someone had been hired to rep%ace him. Howe"er he was ad"ised that he was to be readmitted in June of 1 #. (as there an i%%ega% dismissa%) A. Admitted%y, it is unc%ear whether respondent was actua%%y dismissed. Howe"er, there is no indication that he was to be reinstated. Cn effect, the offer to re'admit :ermano was mere%y a gesture used to mitigate the impact of his e0tended suspension. -his is contrary to the e0p%icit pro"isions of the <abor .ode, which pro"ide that no pre"enti"e suspension shou%d %ast more than 12 days. As the supposed suspension was e0pected to %ast for more than the period a%%owed by %aw, the suspension constitutes an i%%ega% dismissa%. @"en assuming that XKs absence caused difficu%ty to the company, his dismissa% was unwarranted. :i"en the constitutiona% mandate of protection to %abor, the rigid ru%es of procedure may sometimes be dispensed with to gi"e room for compassion. Cn ca%%ing for the protection of %abor, the .onstitution does not condone wrongdoing by the emp%oyee, it ne"erthe%ess urges a moderation of the sanctions to be app%ied, in the %ight of the many disad"antages of %aborers. H'andara 6ill S!;;l# $& NLRC% )00 SCRA (02% 2+ .e em2er 1++0, Q. -he offices and factory of 7aster =hirt .o. were burned, so the company had to cease operations. 7anagement and the union he%d a conference with the /.7B, where they agreed that the company wou%d try to resume operations A=A5, but if this did not occur within # months, the workers wou%d be paid their corresponding separation benefits. After # months, the company fai%ed to resume operations, but the company refused to grant separation pay, for it had not reco"ered on their c%aim for damages against their insurance company. -he union and its members fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%, separation pay and damages against 7ani%a =hirt .o. Are the emp%oyees entit%ed to separation pay) A. =eparation pay is paid to an emp%oyee whose ser"ices are "a%id%y terminated as a resu%t of retrenchment, suspension, c%osure of business or disease. C- does not necessari%y fo%%ow that if there is no i%%ega% dismissa%, no award of separation pay may be made. -he basis for the award in this case is the agreement entered into between the company and the emp%oyees. -he agreement is the %aw between the parties and must be enforced. -he c%aim for damages is una"ai%ing, in the absence of ma%ice or bad faith. (6as"er S<ir" C-& $& NLRC% )00 SCRA /4+% 2+ .e em2er 1++0, Thank &ou to Cris, 'umi, Andrew and (ten"

1++( CASES Q. Cn an i%%ega% dismissa% case, the <abor Arbiter ru%ed in fa"or of the comp%ainant and ordered his reinstatement. -he emp%oyer appea%ed. Befusing to reinstate the worker pending appea%,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille the emp%oyer c%aims that the order of reinstatement needs a writ of e0ecution. -he emp%oyer further maintains that e"en if a writ of e0ecution was issued, a time%y appea% coup%ed by the posting of appropriate supersedeas bond effecti"e%y foresta%%ed and stayed the e0ecution of the <abor Arbiter+s reinstatement order. Cs the emp%oyer+s contention correct) A. /o, the emp%oyer+s contention is erroneous. -he %aw as now worded emp%oys the phrase Esha%% immediate%y be e0ecutoryF without &ua%ification emphasiDing the need for prompt comp%iance. -he term Esha%%F denotes an imperati"e ob%igation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. -he <abor Arbiter+s order of reinstatement does not need a writ of e0ecution. Ct is se%f'e0ecutory. -he posting of a bond by the emp%oyer sha%% not stay the e0ecution for reinstatement. After receipt of the decision ordering reinstatement, the emp%oyer has the right to chose whether to re'admit the emp%oyee to work under the same terms and conditions pre"ai%ing prior to his dismissa% or to reinstate the emp%oyee in the payro%%. Cn either instance, the emp%oyer has to inform the emp%oyee of his choice. (Pi-neer Te>"!riFin8 C-r;& $& NLRC% 200 SCRA 00/% O "-2er 1/% 1++(, Q. (hen can B.A. /o. 4#J1 HBetirement 5ay <awI, which took effect on January 4, 1 gi"en retroacti"e effect) 1, be

A. B.A. 4#J1 may be gi"en retroacti"e effect where H1I the c%aimant for retirement benefits was sti%% the emp%oyee of the emp%oyer at the time the statute took effect$ and H3I the c%aimant was in comp%iance with the re&uirements for e%igibi%ity under the statute for such retirement benefits. -hus, the %aw can app%y to %abor contracts sti%% e0isting at the time the statute took effect and its benefits can be reckoned not on%y from the date of the %aw+s enactment but retroacti"e%y to the time said emp%oyment contracts ha"e started. (Ca2 a2an $& NLRC% 2(( SCRA /(1% A!8!s" 10% 1++(, Q. An insurance agent was re&uired to so%icit business e0c%usi"e%y for A95 7utua% Benefit Association, Cnc. pursuant to an Cnsurance .ommission regu%ation. He was a%so bound by company po%icies, memoScircu%ars, ru%es and regu%ations issued by the company re%ating to payment of the agent+s accountabi%ities, a"ai%ment by the agent of cash ad"ances, incenti"es and awards, and other matters concerning the se%%ing of insurance, in accordance with the ru%es promu%gated by the Cnsurance .ommission. :i"en this set of facts, can the insurance agent be considered an emp%oyee of the company) A. /o, the facts are not sufficient to support the conc%usion that there e0ists an emp%oyer' emp%oyee re%ationship between the agent and the company. -he significant factor in determining the re%ationship of the parties is the presence or absence of super"isory authority to contro% the method and the detai%s of performance of the ser"ice being rendered, and the degree to which the principa% may inter"ene to e0ercise such contro%. /ot e"ery form of contro%, howe"er, may be accorded the effect of estab%ishing an emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship. -here is a difference between ru%es that mere%y ser"e as guide%ines towards the achie"ement of the mutua%%y desired resu%t without dictating the means or methods to be emp%oyed in attaining it, and those that contro% or fi0 the methodo%ogy and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. -he first, which aim on%y to promote the resu%t, create no emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship un%ike the second, which address both the resu%t and the means used to achie"e it. Cn this case, the ru%es that the agent shou%d fo%%ow mere%y aim to promote the resu%t desired, primari%y to conform to the re&uirements of the Cnsurance .ommission. (AFP 6!"!al Bene7i" Ass- ia"i-n $& NLRC% 2/( SCRA 4(% *an!ar# 20% 1++(, Q. An emp%oyer appea%ed from the <abor Arbiter+s decision. Cnstead of posting cash or surety bond, the emp%oyer posted a Bea% @state Bond consisting of %and and "arious impro"ements. Cs such property bond a%%owed) A. (hi%e Artic%e 331 of the <abor .ode pro"ides that an appea% by the emp%oyer may be perfected on%y upon the posting of cash or surety bond, this pro"ision shou%d be gi"en a %ibera% interpretation. -his po%icy stresses the importance of deciding cases on the basis of their substanti"e merit and not on strict technica% ru%es. (hen the rea% property bond sufficient%y protects the interests of the workers shou%d they fina%%y pre"ai%, the appea% shou%d be a%%owed. (UER6-6em-rial 6edi al Cen"er $& NLRC% 2/+ SCRA (0% 6ar < )% 1++(,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q. .9-C, a c%ose fami%y corporation owned by the /aguiat fami%y, stopped its ta0i business within .%ark Air Base because of the phase'out of >.=. mi%itary presence at the said insta%%ation. Cn an i%%ega% dismissa% comp%aint fi%ed by .9-C+s dismissed emp%oyees, the <abor Arbiter ru%ed that =ergio /aguiat, .9-C+s president who had acti"e%y engaged in the management and operation of the corporation, was so%idari%y %iab%e with .9-C for the separation pay due the emp%oyees. Cs the <abor Arbiter+s ru%ing correct) A. *es, the ru%ing is correct. =ergio /aguiat can be he%d so%idari%y %iab%e with the corporation. 9irst, as the president of .9-C who acti"e%y managed the business, /aguiat fa%%s within the meaning of an Eemp%oyerF as contemp%ated by the <abor .ode, who may be he%d ,oint%y and se"era%%y %iab%e for the ob%igations of the corporation to its dismissed emp%oyees. =econd, =ection 122 of the .orporation .ode states that stockho%ders acti"e%y engaged in the management or operation of the business of a c%ose corporation sha%% be persona%%y %iab%e for corporate torts un%ess the corporation has obtained reasonab%y ade&uate %iabi%ity insurance. -ort is a breach of a %ega% duty. =ince the <abor .ode mandates the payment of separation pay to emp%oyees in case of c%osure or cessation of operations not due to business %osses, fai%ure to comp%y with this %aw'imposed duty can be considered a Ecorporate tortF. Hence, pursuant to the .orporation .ode, /aguiat shou%d be he%d so%idari%y %iab%e for this corporate tort. Cn this case, the ru%e that a corporate officer cannot be he%d so%idari%y %iab%e with a corporation in the absence of e"idence that he acted in bad faith is not app%icab%e. (Na8!ia" $& NLRC% 2/+ SCRA 9/4% 6ar < 1)% 1++(, XXX)n another case, the Court held: -he fictiona% "ei% of a corporation can be pierced by the "ery same %aw which created it when Ethe notion of the %ega% entity is used as a means to perpetrate fraud, an i%%ega% act, as a "ehic%e for the e"asion of an e0isting ob%igation, and to confuse %egitimate issues.F >nder the <abor .ode, for instance, when a corporation "io%ates a pro"ision dec%ared to be pena% in nature, the pena%ty sha%% be imposed upon the gui%ty officer or officers of the corporation. -o ,ustify so%idary %iabi%ity, there must be an a%%egation or showing that the officers of the corporation de%iberate%y or ma%icious%y designed to e"ade the financia% ob%igation of the corporation to its emp%oyees, or a showing that the officers indiscriminate%y stopped its business to perpetrate an i%%ega% act, as a "ehic%e for the e"asion of e0isting ob%igations, in circum"ention of statutes, and to confuse %egitimate issues. (Rea<s C-r;-ra"i-n $& NLRC% 2(1 SCRA 24(% A;ril 19% 1++(, Q. 5urificacion was a founding member, a member of the Board of -rustees, and the corporate secretary of pamana :o%den .are 7edica% .enter 9oundation, a non'stock corporation engaged in e0tending medica% and surgica% ser"ices. Cn 1 2, the Board of -rustees issued a memorandum appointing 5urificacion as 7edica% 8irector and Hospita% Administrator of the foundation+s medica% center. A medica% director and aa hospita% administrator are considered as corporate officers under the foundation+s by'%aws. (hen the Board of -rustees re%ie"ed 5urificacion of her position as 7edica% 8irector and Hospita% Administrator, she fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa% and non'payment of wages before the <abor Arbiter. 8oes the <abor Arbiter ha"e ,urisdiction o"er the case) A. /o, the <abor Arbiter has no ,urisdiction o"er the case. -he =ecurities and @0change .ommission has ,urisdiction. -he charges fi%ed by 5urificacion partake of the nature of an intra' corporate contro"ersy. An EofficeF is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is e%ected by the directors or stockho%ders. ?n the other hand, an Eemp%oyeeF usua%%y occupies no office and genera%%y is emp%oyed not by action of the directors or stockho%ders but by the managing officer of the corporation who a%so determines the compensation to be paid such emp%oyee. Cn this case, 5urificacion was appointed by the Board of -rustees to offices stated in the by'%aws. =he is deemed an officer of the corpporation. An officer+s dismissa% is a%ways a corporate act, or an intra'corporate contro"ersy, and the nature is not a%tered by the reason or wisdom which the Board of 8irectors may ha"e in taking such action. -he &uestion of remuneration of an officer is %ikewise not a simp%e %abor prob%em but a matter that comes within


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille the area of corporate affairs and management and is a corporate contro"ersy. NLRC% 2// SCRA 4/2% *an!ar# 21% 1++(,

(Ta2an8 $&

Q. Beformist >nion, a %abor union staged a strike against B.B. <iner in 1 ! . B.B. <iner petitioned the =ecretary of <abor to assume ,urisdiction o"er the dispute or certify it to the /<B.. -he =ecretary certified the case to the /<B. for compu%sory arbitration. -he certified case was dismissed after the union and the company reached an agreement pro"iding, among others, for the ho%ding of a certification e%ection. <ater, when the union fi%ed a comp%aint for unfair %abor practice against the company, i.e. i%%ega% %ockout that a%%eged%y took p%ace after the strike and the e%ection, B.B. <iner countered with another case that sought to dec%are the 1 ! strike i%%ega%. .an the company sti%% contest the %ega%ity of the 1 ! strike) A. /o, the company can no %onger contest the %ega%ity of the strike. -he company itse%f sought compu%sory arbitration in order to reso%"e that "ery issue. -he dispute or strike was sett%ed when the company and the union entered into an agreement. By acceding to the peacefu% sett%ement brokered by the /<B., the company wai"ed the issue of the i%%ega%ity of the strike. -he "ery nature of compu%sory arbitration makes the sett%ement binding upon the company. .ompu%sory arbitration has been defined both as Ethe process of sett%ement of %abor disputes by a go"ernment agency which has the authority to in"estigate and to make an award which is binding on a%% the parties,F and as a mode of arbitration where the parties are Ecompe%%ed to accept the reso%ution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party.F .%ear%y, the %ega%ity of the strike can no %onger be re"iewed. (Re7-rmis" Uni-n -7 R&B& Liner% In & $& NLRC% 2// SCRA (1)% *an!ar# 2(% 1++(, Q. 9rom 1 ;1 unti% 1 1, Honorio worked as maintenance man, carpenter, p%umber, e%ectrician and mason at the -an,angco apartments and residentia% bui%dings. Cn short, he took charge of the maintenance and repair of the bui%dings. He reported for work from 4:22 a.m. to J:22 p.m.. He earned 51!2 a day H%atest sa%aryI. (hen Honorio fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%, -an,angco c%aimed that Honorio was an independent contractor. -an,angco further c%aimed that e"en assuming that Honorio can be considered an emp%oyee, he was mere%y a pro,ect emp%oyee whose ser"ices were hired on%y with respect to a specific ,ob and on%y whi%e the same e0ists. HaI ?n the basis of this set of facts, can Honorio be considered an independent contractor)

A. /o, Honorio was not an independent contractor but an emp%oyee of -an,angco. He was not compensated in terms of profits for his %abor orser"ices %ike an independent contractor. Bather, he was paid on a dai%y wage basis. Ct is absurd to e0pect that with such humb%e resources, Honorio wou%%d ha"e substantia% capita% or in"estment in the form of too%s, e&uipment, and machineries with which to conduct the business of supp%ying -an,angco with manpower and ser"ices for maintaining the apartments and bui%dings. -he most important re&uisite of contro% that determines the e0istence of an emp%oyer'emp%oyee re%ationship is present. -he power of contro% refers mere%y to the e0istence of the power and not to the actua% e0ercise thereof. /atura%%y, Honorio+s work as maintenance man had to be performed within the premises of -an,angco. Ct is not far'fetched to e0pect that Honorio had to obser"e the instructions and specifications gi"en by -an,angco as to how his work had to be performed. -an,angco cou%d easi%y e0ercise contro% on Honorio. HbI (hat kind of an emp%oyee is Honorio)

A. Honorio is a regu%ar emp%oyee. -here are two kinds of regu%ar emp%oyees: H1I those who are engaged to perform acti"ities which are usua%%y necessary or desirab%e in the usua% trade or business of the emp%oyer$ and H3I those who ha"e rendered at %east one year of ser"ice, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the acti"ity in which they are emp%oyed. (hiche"er standard is app%ied, Honorio &ua%ifies as a regu%ar emp%oyee. Honorio cannot be considered a pro,ect emp%oyee. Cf he was emp%oyed as a pro,ect emp%oyee, -an,angco shou%d ha"e submitted a report of termination to the nearest pub%ic emp%oyment office e"erytime his emp%oyment is terminated due to comp%etion of each pro,ect, as re&uired by 5o%icy Cnstruction /o. 32. -here shou%d ha"e been fi%ed as many reports of termination as there were pro,ects actua%%y finished. (A!r-ra Land Pr-Ge "s C-r;& $& NLRC% 2// SCRA 40% *an!ar# 2% 1++(,


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille Q. Antonio was hired by ?rient @0press as crane operator sub,ect to a 1'month probationary period. After on%y one month and fi"e days, he was dismissed. (hen he fi%ed a comp%aint for i%%ega% dismissa%, ?rient @0press c%aimed that he was terminated for poor ,ob performance. ?rient @0press did not inform Antonio about the standards of work re&uired of him by which his competency wou%d be ad,udged. (hen he was dismissed, ?rient @0press did not point out the reasonab%e standards of work by which he was e"a%uated and how he fai%ed to %i"e up to such standards. Cs the dismissa% "a%id) A. /o, the dismissa% is not "a%id. -he ser"ices of an emp%oyee hired on a probationary basis may be terminated when he fai%s to &ua%ify as a regu%ar emp%oyee in accordance with reasonab%e standards made known by the emp%oyer to the emp%oyee at the time of his engagement. Antonio+s dismissa% cannot be sustained on this ground because ?rient @0press fai%ed to specify the reasonab%e standards by which Antonio+s a%%eged poor performance was e"a%uated, much %ess to pro"e that such standards were made known to him at the time of his recruitment. (Orien" E>;ress Pla emen" P<ili;;ines $& NLRC% 2() SCRA 29/% *!ne 11% 1++(, Q. .api%i was an instructor of a pri"ate educationa% institution. Cn 1 1, the schoo% informed .api%i that he wou%d be e%igib%e for retirement when he wou%d reach the age of #2 years. .api%i answered that he was not opting to retire but wou%d continue to ser"e unti% he reaches the age of #;. (hen the schoo% reiterated its position that it cou%d retire him, .api%i fi%ed a comp%aint &uestioning his forced retirement. <ater, after recei"ing the <abor Arbiter+s decision but before fi%ing his appea%, .api%i recei"ed partia% payment of his retirement pay. 8uring the pendency of his apppea% with the /<B., he recei"ed fu%% payment of his retirement benefiits. HaI .an an emp%oyee be compe%%ed to retire at the age of si0ty years) A. /o, an emp%oyee cannot be compe%%ed to retire at the age of si0ty years in the absence of a pro"ision on retirement in the .BA or if the emp%oyer has no retirement p%an. >nder the <abor .ode, as amended by B..A. /?. 4#J1, the option of the emp%oyer to retire an emp%oyee at age #2 no %onger e0ists. >nder the present ru%e, the option to retire upon reaching the age of #2 years or more but not beyond #; is the e0c%usi"e prerogati"e of the emp%oyee if there is no pro"ision on retirement in the .BA or any agreement or if the emp%oyer has no retirement p%an. HbI (i%% the subse&uent acceptance of retirement benefits estop an emp%oyee from pursuing his comp%aint &uestioning the "a%idity of his forced retirement) A. *es, the acceptance of retirement benefits wi%% estop the emp%oyee from pursuing his case. By accepting the retirement benefits, the emp%oyee is deemed to ha"e opted to retire under the present ru%e stated abo"e. (Ca;ili $& NLRC% 2() SCRA 9(/% *!ne 1(% 1++(, Q. .an an emp%oyee uni%atera%%y withdraw hisSher resignation) A. /o, an emp%oyee cannot uni%atera%%y withdraw hisSher resignation. Besignation, once accepted, may not be withdrawn without the consent of the emp%oyer. Cf the emp%oyer consents to the withdrawa%, the emp%oyee retains the ,ob. Cf the emp%oyer does not, the emp%oyee cannot c%aim i%%ega% dismissa%. -o say that an emp%oyee who has resigned is i%%ega%%y dismissed is to encroach upon the right of the emp%oyers to hire persons who wi%% be of ser"ice to them. An emp%oyment contract is consensua% and "o%untary. Cf the resignation is accepted by the emp%oyer, its conse&uent effect is se"erance of the contract of emp%oyment. A resigned emp%oyee who desires to take his ,ob back has to reapp%y therefor and cannot demand an appointment. (P<ili;;ines T-da#% In & $& NLRC% 2/( SCRA 202% *an!ar# )0% 1++(, Q. .an the emp%oyer dismiss an emp%oyee who is aff%icted with pu%monary tubercu%osis) A. *es, but on%y if there is a prior certification from a competent pub%ic authority that the disease aff%icting the emp%oyee sought to be dismissed is of such nature or at such stage that it cannot be cured within si0 H#I months e"en with proper medica% treatment. -he fact that an emp%oyee is suffering from a disease and whose continued emp%oyment is prohibited by %aw or is


SURVEY OF 2000-2001 LABOR CASES ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001 Aris and Camille pre,udicia% to his hea%th as we%% as to that of his co'emp%oyees does not ipso facto make the emp%oyee a candidate for dismissa%. (Tan $& NLRC% 2(1 SCRA 21/% A;ril 14% 1++(, Q. Cn the proceedings before the <abor Arbiter, on%y the unregistered trade name of the emp%oyerUcorporation, EHacienda <anutan,F and its administrator'manager were imp%eaded and subse&uent%y he%d %iab%e for i%%ega% dismissa%. ?n appea%, the /<B. motu proprio inc%uded the corporate name of the emp%oyer as ,oint%y and se"era%%y %iab%e for the workers+ c%aims. -here is no dispute that Hacienda <anutan which was owned so%e%y by the emp%oyer'corporation was imp%eaded and heard. Ct was represented by its corporate officer in the proceedings before the <abor Arbiter. Cs the /<B.+s action ,ustified) A. *es, the action is ,ustified. Cn &uasi',udicia% proceedings, procedura% ru%es go"erning ser"ice of summons are not strict%y construed. =ubstantia% comp%iance thereof is sufficient. Cn %abor cases, puncti%%ious adherence to stringent technica% ru%es may be re%a0ed in the interest of the worker$ it shou%d not defeat the comp%ete and e&uitab%e reso%ution of the rights and ob%igations of the parties. 9urthermore, the /<B. is gi"en the power to correct, amend, or wai"e any error, defect or irregu%arity whether in the substance or in the form of the proceedings before it. -he non'inc%usion of the corporate name of the emp%oyer was a mere procedura% error which did not at a%% affect the ,urisdiction of the %abor tribuna%s. (Pis-n-Ar e- A8ri !l"!ral and .e$el-;men" C-r;& $& NLRC% 2(+ SCRA )12% Se;"em2er 10% 1++(,

-he =tate is bound under the .onstitution to afford fu%% protection to %abor and when conf%icting interests of %abor and capita% are to be weighed on the sca%es of socia% ,ustice the hea"ier inf%uence of the %atter shou%d be counterba%anced with the sympathy and compassion the %aw accords the %ess pri"i%eged worker. -his is on%y fair if the worker is to be gi"en the opportunity and the right to assert and defend hisSher cause not as a subordinate but as part of management with which heSshe can negotiate on e"en p%ane. -hus %abor is not a mere emp%oyee of capita% but its acti"e and e&ua% partner. (F!en"es $& NLRC% 2// SCRA 24% *an!ar# 2% 1++(,