You are on page 1of 1

1. National Semiconductor vs NLRC, June 26, 1998 - p.

102: lied about being present in his DTR;
no illegal dismissal but allowed night shift differentials limited to 3 years; afforded due process
through notice and opportunity to be heard despite lack of formal trial
2. PAL vs NLRC, February 2, 1999 - p.456: Flight surgeon left for dinner when employee got a
heart attack did not constitute abandonment of post
3. Far East Agricultural Supply vs Jimmy Lebatique, February 12, 2007 - p.454: truck driver of
animal feeds suspended for illegal use of vehicle even though required to make a second
delivery; complaint for overtime pay got him dismissed; did not abandon work so illegally
dismissed; regular employee under control and supervision of management
4. Penaranda vs Baganga Plywood, May 3, 2006 - p.453: not entitled to OT and premium pay for
rest days because he was a shift engineer in charge of supervising the engineering section of the
steam plant boiler=member of the managerial staff; no illegal dismissal because still employed
and temporary closure did not severe employment so no need to reapply
5. Bisig ng Manggagawa vs Philippine Refining Co, September 30, 1981 - p.103: WON Xmas
bonus is part of computation of overtime pay=no; actually gives more; not contradictory to
Nawasa doctrine
6. Simedarby vs NLRC, April 15, 1998 - p.101: lunch break change from 30 minutes on-call to 1
hour; management prerogative, no violation of EPC
7. Interphi Laboratories Employees Union vs Interphil
Laboratories Inc. December 19, 2001 - p.95: work slowdown and overtime boycott; SOLE had
JD, considered an illegal strike; all because management refused to negotiate CBA prematurely;
working hours may be changed by management prerogative
8. National Development Company vs CIR, November 30,
1962 - p.99: for 8 hours, meal time was inclusive and all 8 hours credited. For overtime, 16
hours, meal time inclusive but only credited 6 hours. Mealtime cant be included because nature
of work is continuous (cant leave stations)
9. Union of Filipro vs Vivar, January 20, 1992 - p.88: salesmen are field personnel not entitled to
holiday pay; divisor must be 251 because holiday pay must be excluded form the computation
10. Mercidar vs NLRC, October 8, 1998 - p.89: constructive dismissal of bodegero because he
was sick and when back at work he wasn't given work; no certificate of employment unless he
tenders resignation letter; not field personnel so entitled to incentives pay
11. National Sugar vs NLRC, March 24, 1993 - p.87: Job evaluation program; commensurate
pay and benefits; Union didn't have same benefits as rank and file employees anymore;
management prerogative
12. Labor Congress vs NLRC, May 21, 1998 - p.92: 99 rank and file employees