Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Survey of Jurisprudence On Security of Tenure PDF
Survey of Jurisprudence On Security of Tenure PDF
CASE TITLE
PRINCIPLE
DOCTRINE (SC)
TREND OF
DECISION
2013
GAN vs. GALDERMA PHILS., INC.
G.R. No. 177167
17 January 2013
J. Peralta
LA dismissed
complaint
LA 21 April 2003
NLRC affirmed LA
NLRC
CA affirmed NLRC
decision
CA 21 March 2007
SC affirmed CA
LA 20 October 2005
NLRC 30 May 2007; 14
November 2007 (MR)
CA 26 March 2010; 05
July 2010 (MR)
LA dismissed
complaint for
illegal dismissal
NLRC affirmed LA
decision; denied MR
of PPHI
CA reversed NLRC
decision
SC reversed the
conclusions and
findings of CA
LA illegal
dismissal; awarded
separation pay in
lieu of
reinstatement;
th
proportionate 13
month pay and
service incentive
leave pay
NLRC modified LA
decision and ruled
there was no illegal
dismissal but
sustained the
awards given by LA
CA affirmed NLRC
decision including
the awards
SC - modified the
decision of CA and
directed the
reinstatement of
respondents in lieu
of the award of
separation pay and
to deduct the sum
of P1,025.00 from
the SILP
individually
awarded in favor of
Page 3
respondents. The
rest is AFFIRMED.
LA illegal
dismissal; ordered
petitioners
immediate
reinstatement
without loss of
seniority rights and
benefits and
awarded full
backwages.
NLRC denied
appeal (assailing the
14 April 2008 LA
Page 4
Abandonment
decision)
CA set aside NLRC
decision and ruled
that petitioner was
fully reinstated
SC set aside CA
decision; NLRC July
7, 2009 Decision
and November 18,
2009 Resolution as
well as the April 14,
2008 Order of the
Labor Arbiter are
hereby
REINSTATED with
MODIFICATION in
that the Tabaco
Womens Transport
Service Cooperative
Is ORDERED to pay
petitioner
Alexander B.
Baares the
following:
(1) Backwages and
other emoluments
due to petitioner
from March 31, 2007
when petitioner did
not report for work
until finality of this
Decision with
interest thereon at
Page 5
LA 29 July 2005
NLRC 28 April 2006; 31
July 2006 (MR)
CA 24 October 2007;
14 march 2008 (MR)
LA dismissed
complaint for
illegal dismissal
NLRC affirmed LA
decision in its
entirety
Page 6
engagement
Requirements for dismissal of
probationary employee based on
failure to meet probationary standards
CA nullified and
set aside NLRC
decision; found the
respondent illegally
dismissed
SC affirmed CA
decision with
Modification,
petitioner is
ordered to pay
respondent:
(1) backwages,
inclusive of
allowances and
other benefits, or
their monetary
equivalent,
computed from the
date of his dismissal
up to the finality of
this decision; (2)
separation pay in
lieu of
reinstatement
equivalent to at
least one month
pay, or one month
pay for every year
of service,
whichever is higher
(with a fraction of at
least six months
being considered as
one whole year),
computed from the
Page 7
time of his
employment or
engagement up to
the finality of the
decision; (3)
attorney's fees
equivalent to 10%
of the monetary
awards; and (4)
interest at 6% per
annum from date of
termination until
full payment
PASOS vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
LA 28 March 2006
Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, a
project employee is one whose "employment has been
fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion
or termination of which has been determined at the time
of the engagement of the employee or where the work or
services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season." Thus, the
principal test used to determine whether employees are
project employees is whether or not the employees were
assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking,
the duration or scope of which was specified at the time
33
the employees were engaged for that project.
xxx
While for first three months, petitioner can be considered
a project employee of PNCC, his employment thereafter,
LA illegal
dismissal; ruled
that petitioner
attained regular
employment;
awarded full
backwages and
separation pay in
lieu of
reinstatement
NLRC reversed
LA; dismissed the
complaint
CA dismissed
petition for lack of
merit
SC - reinstated LA
decision with
modifications:
Page 8
1) respondent
PNCC is
DIRECTED to pay
petitioner Roy D.
Pasos full back
wages from the
time of his illegal
dismissal on
October 19, 2000
up to the finality
of this Decision,
with interest at
6% per annum,
and 12% legal
interest
thereafter until
fully paid;
2) respondent
PNCC is
ORDERED to
reinstate
petitioner Pasos
to his former
position or to a
substantially
equivalent one,
without loss of
seniority rights
and other benefits
attendant to the
position; and
3) respondent
PNCC is
DIRECTED to pay
petitioner Pasos
Page 9
attorney's fees
equivalent to 10%
of his total
monetary award.
DONGON vs. RAPID MOVERS
AND FORWARDERS CO., INC.
LA dismissed
complaint for
illegal dismissal
LA - 10 September 2001
NLRC reversed LA
decision; awarded
backwages and
separation pay
CA reinstated LA
decision
SC reversed and
set aside CA
decision;
reinstated NLRC
decision;
Page 10
LA ruled
respondent was
illegally dismissed;
petitioner ordered
to pay severance
th
compensation, 13
month pay, moral
and exemplary
damages and 10%
attorneys fees
NLRC affirmed
with modification
LA decision;
ordered
reinstatement of
Page 11
respondent to his
former position
without loss of
seniority rights and
full backwages
CA affirmed NLRC
decision
SC affirmed the
CA decision
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
LA 27 October 2004
NLRC 08 May 2006
CA 13 march 2008
LA respondents
were illegally
dismissed as it
appeared that they
had involuntarily
executed their
resignation letters.
NLRC affirmed LA
decision with
modification;
respondents were
Page 15
awarded
backwages,
separation pay and
moral and
exemplary damages
CA - affirmed NLRC
decision
SC respondents
were indeed illegally
dismissed;
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
2012
MANSION PRINTING CENTER vs.
BITARA, JR.
Gross negligence
LA dismissed
complaint for lack
of merit
NLRC 29 June
2001 affirmed LA
decision in toto
CA reversed
NLRC and LA
SC -
xxx
In Valiao, we defined gross negligence as want of care
in the performance of ones duties and habitual neglect
as repeated failure to perform ones duties for a period
of time, depending upon the circumstances.51 These are
not overly technical terms, which, in the first place, are
expressly sanctioned by the Labor Code of the
Philippines, to wit:
ART. 282. Termination by employer. - An
employer may terminate an employment for
any of the following causes:
Page 19
(a) xxx
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee
of his duties;
xxx
Clearly, even in the absence of a written company rule
defining gross and habitual neglect of duties,
respondents omissions qualify as such warranting his
dismissal from the service.
xxx
Procedural due process entails compliance with the twonotice rule in dismissing an employee, to wit: (1) the
employer must inform the employee of the specific acts
or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2)
after the employee has been given the opportunity to be
heard, the employer must inform him of the decision to
terminate his employment.
xxx
In Bughaw v. Treasure Island Industrial Corporation, this
Court, in verifying the veracity of the allegation that
respondent refused to receive the Notice of Termination,
essentially looked for the following: (1) affidavit of service
stating the reason for failure to serve the notice upon the
recipient; and (2) a notation to that effect, which shall be
written on the notice itself. Thus:
xxx Bare and vague allegations as to the
manner of service and the circumstances
surrounding the same would not suffice. A mere
copy of the notice of termination allegedly sent
by respondent to petitioner, without proof of
receipt, or in the very least, actual service
Page 20
LA 28 December 2004
NLRC 31 March 2006;
28 August 2006 (MR)
CA 10 August 2009; 26
November 2009 (MR)
LA petitioner was
illegally dismissed
from service
NLRC denied
petition for lack of
merit; denied MR
CA reversed NLRC;
petitioners
dismissal from
service is lawful;
right to due process
was not violated
SC dismissal of
petitioner was
based on just causes
under Art. 282 of
the Labor Code
Page 21
xxx
Page 22
LA - illegal
dismissal;
ordered
respondents
reinstatement to
his former
position without
loss of seniority
rights and
privileges; in
case of appeal,
ordered to
reinstate
complainant in
the payroll;
ordered
petitioner to pay
respondent full
backwages,
medical benefits,
th
13 month pay
for year 2003,
Moral and
Exemplary
Damages, and
10% of the total
award as
attorneys fees
NLRC affirmed
with
modification LA
decision;
reduced the
award for moral
and exemplary
damages,
Page 23
including the
attorneys fees as
the same was
based on total
awards
- On MR, NLRC
further
reduced it
award for
moral and
exemplary
damages
CA partly
considered the
petition
meritorious;
petitioner had
the right to
terminate
respondent;
deleted the
awards for
backwages and
moral and
exemplary
damages; but
awarded
P1,225,000.00
(representing his
salary from
February 2003 to
August 29,
2003), medical
expenses of
P94,100.00,
temperate
Page 24
damages of
th
P100,000.00, 13
month pay of
P175,000.00, and
attorneys fees of
10% of the total
monetary award
SC modified
the decision of
CA; REMANDED
the case to the
NLRC Fifth
Division,
Cagayan de Oro
City for proper
computation of
awards which
respondent may
be entitled to.
Page 25
Transfer/reassignment which
constitutes constructive dismissal
LA 25 August 2000
NLRC 18 December
2003; 19 April 2004 (MR)
CA 23 September 2005
LA dismissed the
complaint
NLRC overruled
LA decision and
REMANDED the
case for further
proceedings in its
17 January 2002
decision; In its 23
September 2003
Resolution, NLRC
vacated its
previous decision
and ruled that
respondents were
illegally dismissed;
ordered
respondents
reinstatement,
payment of
backwages, salary
differentials,
th
premium pay, 13
month pay, service
incentive leave
pay, and COLA
- On 18
December 2003,
upon MR filed
by petitioner,
NLRC ruled that
respondents
were not
illegally
dismissed
Page 26
- On 19 April
2004, denied
respondents
MR
CA reversed and
set aside NLRC
resolutions dated
18 December 2003
and 19 April 2004;
remanded the case
to the LA for
computation of
backwages
andother
monetary awards.
SC - affirmed CA
decision
The LA, the NLRC, the CA and the Court are one in saying
that the strike staged by the Union, participated in by the
Union officers and members, is illegal being in violation
of the no strike-no lockout provision of the CBA which
enjoined both the Union and the company from resorting
to the use of economic weapons available to them under
the law and to instead take recourse to voluntary
arbitration in settling their disputes.[22] We, therefore,
find no reason to depart from such conclusion.
Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code lays down the liabilities
of the Union officers and members participating in illegal
strikes and/or committing illegal acts, to wit:
ART. 264. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
(a) x x x
LA 29 June 1999
NLRC 08 November
1999
CA - 24 February 2005
SC 29 September 2010
(Decision)
LA declared
strike illegal ;
Union officers
deemed forfeited
their employment;
union members
were ordered
reinstated with
backwages; denied
Unions
counterclaim
NLRC affirmed LA
decision insofar as
declaring the strike
illegal, termination
of Union officers
Page 27
a.
They threatened, coerced, and
intimidated non-striking employees, officers,
suppliers and customers;
b. They obstructed the free ingress to and
egress from the company premises; and
c.
They resisted and defied the
Survey of Jurisprudence on Termination and Security of Tenure
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
SC affirmed CA
decision
Page 31
Page 32
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES vs. LOGARTA
Requisites of Retrenchment as a
valid excuse of management
prerogative
LA ordered
petitioner to pay
respondent his
wages for the
unexpired portion
of his contract of
employment; all
other claims were
dismissed
NLRC affirmed LA
decision but
reduced the award
CA dismissed the
petition and
affirmed NLRC
Page 33
decision
SC denied petition;
affirmed with
modification the CA
decision; petitioner
was ordered to pay
the respondent one
month salary as
separation pay and
Php50,000.00 as
nomnal damages
LA declared
petitoners dismissal
illegal; ordered his
Page 34
J. Perez
LA 11 November 2005
NLRC 20 July 2006
CA 20 September 2007
reinstatement,
backwages
assessed at
P390,005.00 at the
time of the
rendition of the
decision, 13th
month pay in the
sum of P32,500.50,
quarterly bonus in
the sum of
P130,002.00 and
CBA signing bonus
in the sum of
P120,000.00. On
the ground that
Morales dismissal
from service was
tainted with bad
faith and malice,
the Labor Arbiter
likewise held
Metrobank liable to
pay said employee
P100,000.00 in
moral damages,
P100,000.00 in
exemplary damages
and attorneys fees
at 10% of the total
award computed at
P87,250.65. From
the grand total of
P959,757.15 in
monetary awards,
the Labor Arbiter
decreed the
deduction of the
Page 35
sum of P158,496.95
which Morales had
acknowledged to
have received by
way of separation
benefits.
NLRC reversed
and set aside LA
decision
CA dismissed the
petition and upheld
validity of
petitioners
termination from
service
SC denied petition
for lack of merit
2011
2010
C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC. vs.
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 155109
14 March 2012
J. Peralta
Termination of employment of
union officers and/or members due
to commission of prohibited or
illegal acts during strike
LA 29 June 1999
NLRC 08 November
1999
CA - 24 February 2005
LA declared
strike illegal ;
Union officers
deemed forfeited
their employment;
union members
were ordered
reinstated with
backwages; denied
Unions
counterclaim
NLRC affirmed LA
Page 36
decision insofar as
declaring the strike
illegal, termination
of Union officers
and directing them
to pay damages; but
modified it and
ruled that identified
union members
should likewise be
terminated from
service for
commission of
illegal and
prohibited acts
xxx
CA dismissed
petition and ruled
that resinstatement
of union members
pending appeal had
no basis
Page 37
xxx
PICOP RESOURCES,
INCORPORATED (PRI) vs.
RICARDO DEQUILLA, et.al.
Page 38
Page 39
Award
2009
LA ROSA vs AMBASSADOR
HOTEL
Constructive dismissal
G.R. 177059
Survey of Jurisprudence on Termination and Security of Tenure
LA illegal
dismissal,
separation pay at
month pay for
Page 40
13 March 2009
J. Carpio-Morales
NLRC 08 September
2005
every year of
service with full
backwages and 10%
Atty.s fees.
CA 12 December 2006
Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly
pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not
want to work anymore. And the burden of proof to show
that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work
rests on the employer.
CA reversed NLRC
and ruled that there
was no constructive
dismissal
xxx
Abandonment
G.R. 169780
16 February 2009
J. Velasco, Jr.
NLRC affirmed LA
decision with
modification
SC reinstated LAs
decision
xxx
LA - 27 February 2001
NLRC 23 September
2002; 30 January 2004
LA dismissed
complaint
NLRC reversed
LA ; denied MR
CA reversed and
set aside NLRC
decision; reinstated
Page 41
(MR)
CA 18 November 2004
LA decision
SC affirmed CA
decision
LA granted
retirement pay
NLRC 13 December
2004
CA 01 March 2006; 27
June 2006
SC 30 March 2009
CA dismissed the
petition on
technicalities (non
submission of
certificate of nonforum shopping and
no apparent
authorization) 27
June 2006 decision
reinstated the
petition
Page 42
2008
PRICE vs. INNODATA PHILS., INC.
G.R. No. 178505
30 September 2008
J. Chico-Nazario
Labor Arbiter
rendered
declaring
complainants
dismissal illegal
and ordering
respondent
INNODATA
PHILS.
INC./INNODAT
Page 43
A
CORPORATIO
N to reinstate
them to their
former or
equivalent
position
without loss of
seniority rights
and benefits.
NLRC: reversed
the Labor
Arbiters
Decision dated
17 October
2000, and
absolved
INNODATA of
the charge of
illegal
dismissal. The
NLRC found
that petitioners
were not
regular
employees, but
were fixedterm
employees as
stipulated in
their respective
contracts of
employment.
Court of
Appeals
promulgated its
Decision
sustaining the
Page 44
Date of Filing
ruling of the
NLRC that
petitioners
were not
illegally
dismissed.
SC reversed CA
decision and
uphold the
decision of the
Labor Arbiter
Labor Arbiter
declared
Astorgas
dismissal from
employment
illegal.
NLRC sustained
Astorgas
dismissal
reversing the
Labor Arbiter
CA affirmed
NLRC decision
SC affirmed CA
decision with
modification to
the awards
Page 45
YRASEGUI V. PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES, INC.
Date of Filing:
Labor Arbiter
ruled that
petitioner was
illegally
dismissed
NLRC affirmed
Page 46
Date of Filing:
Date of Decision
NLRC: 29 December
2004
decision of
Labor Arbiter
CA reversed
decision of
NLRC
SC affirmed
decision of CA
with
modification
regarding
entitlement to
separation pay
Labor Arbiter
ruled that
repatriation is
illegal
NLRC reversed
Labor Arbiters
decision
CA affirmed
NLRC decision
SC affirmed CA
decision with
modification on
the payment of
nominal
damages
Page 47
WOODRIDGE SCHOOL V. PE
BENITO
Date of Filing: 28
February 2001
Labor Arbiter
ruled that the
termination of
the
respondents
probationary
employment
was justified
because of
their failure to
submit vital
teaching
documents
NLRC affirmed
Labor Arbiters
decision
CA reversed
NLRC decision
SC affirmed CA
decision
Page 48
SAGALES V. RUSTANS
COMMERCIAL CORP
Date of Filing
Labor Arbiter
ruled that the
petition for
illegal dismissal
is dismissed for
lack of merit
NLRC reversed
the decision of
the Labor
Arbiter
CA reversed the
decision of
NLRC
SC reversed the
decision of CA
Page 49
Date of Filing: 17
September 2001
Labor Arbiter
ruled that
respondent
(BMA) is liable
for illegal
dismissal and
ordered the
reinstatement
of the
petitioners
NLRC reversed
the decision of
Page 50
15 April 2005
Labor Arbiter
CA affirmed
NLRC decision
SC affirmed CA
decision
2007
VICTORY LINER vs. RACE
G.R. No. 164820
28 March 2007
J.Chico-Nazario
EE/ER Relationship
Causes of termination
Abandonment
Procedural compliance with the
Twin Notice Rule
Reinstatement
NLRC reversed
LA; CA affirmed
NLRC; SC
affirmed CA
Page 51
EE/ER
Loss of trust and confidence
Misappropriation of company
funds
CENTRAL PANGASINAN
ELECTRIC CORP vs NLRC
G.R. 163561
24 July 2007
J. Quisumbing
THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ASSOCIATED
BROADCASTING COMPANY, JOSE
JAVIER AND EDWARD TAN
ER-EE
Just cause- violation of companys
code of conduct
Gross misconduct and acts of
dishonesty
Talent contracts
CAEDA vs PAL
G.R. No. 152232
26 February 2007
J. Corona
LA- illegal
dismissaal
NLRC reversed
Ca reinstate LA
SC- dismissal is
legal.
LA-dismissed
SC -affirmed
20 December 1999
Filed complaint
LA dismissed
complaint
LA 29 March 2000
NLRC reversed
LA; held that an
employer-employee
relationship existed
between petitioner
and ABC; that the
subject talent
contract was void;
that the petitioner
was a regular
employee illegally
dismissed; and that
she was entitled to
reinstatement and
backwages or
separation pay, aside
th
from 13 month pay
and service incentive
leave pay, moral and
exemplary damages
and attorneys fees.
xxx
Page 52
Regular employment
Fixed-term employment
CA - reversed the
NLRC; ruled that
petitioner is a fixedterm EE
SC - reversed and
set aside CA;
affirmed NLRC
decision; ruled
petitioner as regular
employee
x xx
Security of tenure
Page 53
tenure and can be dismissed only for just cause and after due
compliance with procedural due process. Since private
respondents did not observe due process in constructively
dismissing the petitioner, we hold that there was an illegal
dismissal.
2006
RENATO S. GATBONTON vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, MAPUA INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY and JOSE
CALDERON
Illegal suspension
1999-Complaint for
illegal suspension
18 June 1999 LA
30 September 1999
NLRC
13 December 1999
NLRC (MR)
10 November 2000
CA
16 January 2001 CA
(MR)
23 January 2006 - SC
LA declared
suspension illegal
& directed
respondent MIT
to pay backwages
but dismissed
claim for damages
NLRC granted
respondent MIT
appeal and set
aside LA decision;
denied
petitioners MR
CA affirmed NLRC
decision; denied
petitioners MR
SC reinstated LAs
decision
Page 54
INDUSTRIAL
TIMBER
CORPORATION, ET AL. VS.
VIRGILIO ABABON, ET AL.
x xx
21 October 2002
CA
20 January 1992 - LA
25 January 2006 - SC
LA upheld the
validity of the
closure; ordered
petitioner to pay
separation pay of
month for every
year of service
NLRC set aside
LA decision of the
Labor Arbiter;
ordered
reinstatement of
EEs to former
positions, and the
payment of full
back wages,
damages and
attorneys fees
CA affirmed the
20 May 1993
NLRC decision
SC affirmed the
LA decision with
modification;
petitioner was
ordered to pay
separation pay
equivalent to one
month pay or to
at least one-half
month pay for
every year of
service,
whichever is
higher, and
Page 55
P50,000.00 as
nominal damages
to each
employee.
PREMIER
BANKvs.ELSIE
MANTAL
DEVELOPMENT
ESCUDERO
Illegal dismissal
Just cause for termination; gross
negligence; misconduct; loss of
trust and confidence
2000-2001 filing of
complaint for illegal
suspension,
dismissal, unpaid
th
salary and 13 month
pay, moral and
exemplary damages
LA there is illegal
suspension
and
illegal
dismissal;
ordered
respondents
reinstatement
to
her former position,
with
full
backwages,
half
month salary and
th
half month 13
month pay, and
attorneys fees.
Page 56
NLRC reversed LA
On the other hand, misconduct is improper or wrongful
conduct. It is the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and
not mere error in judgment. Under Article 282 of the
Labor Code, the misconduct, to be a just cause for
termination, must be of such grave and aggravated
character, not merely of a trivial or unimportant nature.
For serious misconduct to warrant the dismissal of an
employee, it (1) must be serious; (2) must relate to the
performance of the employees duty; and (3) must show
that the employee has become unfit to continue working
for the employer. x xx
An employer may terminate an employee for fraud or
willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him
by his employer or duly authorized representative.
However, the right of an employer to terminate an
employee based on loss of confidence must not be
exercised arbitrarily and without just cause. To be a valid
reason for dismissal, loss of confidence must be genuine.
Uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the
employer will not suffice, otherwise it will jeopardize the
constitutional guarantee of security of tenure
of the employee.
x xx
CA reinstated LA
decision
SC affirmed CA;
ordering
the
reinstatement
of
respondent to her
former
position,
with
full
backwages,
inclusive
of
allowances and to
the other benefits
or their monetary
equivalent from the
time
her
compensation was
withheld up to her
actual
reinstatement, plus
attorneys fees
BIG AA MANUFACTURER
EUTIQUIO ANTONIO ET. AL.
VS.
Kinds of EEs
Illegal dismissal
LA - rendered a
decision ordering
Big-Aa
Manufacturers II, et.
al.
to
pay
respondents
its
separation pay, and
backwages.
The LA further held
that
respondents
were constructively
dismissed when the
Implementing
Guidelines changed
their status from
regular employees
to
project
employees.
NLRC - modified
LA decision
It ordered petitioner
to
reinstate
respondents to their
former positions or
to
pay
them
separation pay in
case reinstatement
was
no
longer
feasible, with full
backwages in either
case.NLRC
ruled
that
respondents
were
regular
Page 58
employees
not
independent
contractors.
It
further held that
petitioner failed to
justify its reason for
terminating
respondents and its
failure to comply
with
the
due
process
requirements.
CA affirmed NLRC
decision
SC
denied
Petition.
NLRC is ordered to
recomputed
the
respondents
backwages
and
separation pay, as
aforementioned,
and execute the
payments
to
respondents.
Page 59
Reinstatement
19January 2000
filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal
29 August 2000
LA rendered decision
7 August 2001 CA
decision
6 March 2006
SC decision
LA
found
respondents guilty
of illegal dismissal
and ordered the
reinstatement
of
petitioners
with
backwages
and
without loss of
seniority rights.
NLRC - reversed LA
decision and the
complaint
was
dismissed.
CA affirmed the
NLRC decision.
SC- Petition is
PARTIALLY
GRANTED and the
assailed
Decision
dated August 7,
2001 rendered by
the CA is SET
ASIDE. Petitioners
Perez and Campos
are
ordered
reinstated without
backwages
but
without loss of
seniority.
Page 60
Dishonesty
25 March 1992
Filed
for
illegal
dismissal, unfair labor
practice
and
nonpayment of benefits.
31 August 1998
LA rendered decision
31January 2003
CA decision
10 March 2006
SC decision
LA Mercury Drug
Corporation, guilty
of
illegally
dismissing Serrano,
without
lawful
cause and due
process and thus
ordered to reinstate
her to her previous
position
without
loss of seniority
rights and other
privileges
with
payment of full
backwages.
The charge of unfair
labor practice was
dismissed for lack of
merit
NLRC- reversed LA
decision
and
dismissed
the
complaint.
CA reversed NLRC
decision and upheld
the findings of the
LA.
SC
PARTLY
GRANTS
the
petition. The Court
SETS ASIDE the 31
January
2003
Decision and the 21
October
2003
Resolution of the
Page 61
Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No.
59152. The Court
upholds respondent
Zenaida
G.
Serranos dismissal
from employment
by
petitioner
Mercury
Drug
Corporation on the
ground of loss of
trust
and
confidence.
However, the Court
ORDERS petitioner
Mercury
Drug
Corporation to pay
respondent Zenaida
G. Serrano the
amount of P30,000
as
nominal
damages for failure
to comply fully with
the
notice
requirement as part
of due process.
Causes of Termination
LA - ruled in favor
of the retrenched
Page 62
(Authorized cause)
Retrenchment
Quitclaim
the NLRC.
employees.
6 March 2000
LA decision
15 January 2001 - NLRC
decision
NLRC reversed LA
decision and
dismissed the
complaint for lack
of merit.
31 July 2003
CA decision
CA affirmed NLRC
decision
10 March 2006
SC decision
SC affirmed CA
decision
2001filed a complaint
for illegaldismissal and
illegal suspension with
claim for monetary
benefits.
LA-dismissed the
complaint and the
counterclaims for
lack of merit. There
was
a
lawful
Page 63
J. Callejo, Sr.
dismissal.
18 November 2002 LA
decision
19 November 2003
NLRC affirmed LA
decision
13 August 2004
CA decision
10 March 2006
SC decision
NLRC reversed LA
decision and
ordered for
immediate
reinstatement
without demotionin
rank and salary; and
payment of
backwages.
CA reversed NLRC
decision and
reinstates the
decision of the LA.
SC - The August 13,
2004 Decision and
September 27, 2004
Resolution of the
Court of Appeals
are
REVERSED
AND SET ASIDE.
The decision and
resolution of the
NLRC
are
reinstated.
Page 64
LAruled
that
petitioners
were
not
illegally
dismissed.
LA
denied their money
claims.
NLRC reversed LA
decision
CA reversed NLRC
decision and
reinstated LA
decision.
SC petition is
PARTIALLY
GRANTED.
The
Court of Appeals
Decision
dated
September 30, 1999
is
AFFIRMED
insofar only as it
reinstated
the
Labor
Arbiters
finding that there
was
no
illegal
dismissal.
However,
the
NLRCs
Decision
dated
December
Page 65
MARICALUM
MINING
CORPORATION
VSANTONIO DECORION
Preventive suspension
12 April 2006
SC decision
LA-finding
Decorions dismissal
illegal and ordering
his reinstatement
with payment of
backwages
and
attorneys fees.
NLRC reversedLA
decision and
dismissed the
complaint.
CA reinstated LA
decision.
SC affirmed CA
decision
Filed constructive
dismissal against the
employer.
LA-dismissed
the
complaint for lack of
merit.
Page 66
requirements
G.R. No. 164774
April 12, 2006
J. Puno
31 May 2002
LA decision.
11 January 2002 NLRC decision
NLRC affirmed LA
decision
CA reversing
NLRCs decision
SC Affirmed CA
decision.
3 August 2004
CA decision
12 April 2006 SC decision
Page 67
Illegal dismissal
12 February 2002,
private respondent filed
a Complaint with the
Labor Arbiter for unfair
labor practice and
claimed overtime pay,
premium for holiday
pay and service
incentive leave pay.
18 April 2002, he filed an
Amended Complaint for
Illegal Dismissal on 9
March 2002 and claimed
for overtime pay,
premium for holiday pay
and separation pay. In
his position paper, he
prayed for 13th month
pay, service incentive
leave pay, overtime pay
and legal holiday pay in
addition to the charge of
illegal dismissal.
29 November 2002 LA
decision
LA rendered a
decision
that
Pamalowas validly
dismissed.
NLRC - reversed the
Decision of the
Labor Arbiter.
Respondent Tower
Industries Sales is
ordered to reinstate
the complainant
and to pay him full
backwages
computed from his
date of dismissal on
March 14, 2002 up
to his
reinstatement.
CA affirmed
NLRCs decision.
SC affirmedCA
decision.
LA valid
dismissal; ordered
respondent
company to pay
Page 68
xxx
In Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Zulueta, we ruled that an
employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with
the employment of a person who is guilty of misfeasance
or malfeasance towards his employer and whose
continuance in employment is patently inimical to the
latters interests. For the law, in protecting the rights of
labor, authorizes neither the oppression nor the selfdestruction of the employer.
ASIAN
INTERNATIONAL
MANPOWER SERVICES, INC.
(AIMS) vs. COURT OF APPEALS
and ANICETA LACERNA
underpayment and
nonpayment of
th
wages and 13
month pay
20 February 2000LA
NLRC affirmed LA
decision
25 March 2002
CA affirmed NLRC
decision
petitioners unpaid
salaries
NLRC affirmed
LA decision
CA affirmed
NLRC
SC affirmed CA
decision in toto
NLRC
reversed
LA; CA set aside
and
annulled
NLRC;
SC
reversed CA
NLRC
affirmed
LA; CA reversed
NLRC;
SC
affirmed CA
Page 69
Managerial Employees
G.R. 159577
03 May 2006
CJ. Panganiban
Labor Arbiter
ruled there was
no illegal
dismissal;
petitioner
entitled to
overtime pay,
premium pay
for working on
rest days and
attorneys fees.
NLRC reversed
the Labor
Arbiters
decision
awarding
overtime pay
and premium
pay, petitioner
not entitled
thereto being a
managerial
employee.
Page 70
EASTERN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS.
INC vs DIAMSE
G.R. 169299
16 June 2006
J. Ynares-Santiago
Date of Filing:
Date of Decision
NLRC: 24 July 2003
CA affirmed
the Decision of
the NLRC.
SC affirmed the
CA Decision.
Labor Arbiter
found ETPI
liable for illegal
dismissal.
NLRC reversed
the Decision of
the Labor
Arbiter.
CA reversed
the Decision of
the NLRC.
SC affirmed the
Decision of the
Page 71
Illegal Dismissal
reinstatement; strained
relations rule.
CA with
modification
that the case be
remanded to
the LA for the
computation of
backwages,
inclusive of
allowances and
other benefits
or their
monetary
equivalent; and
separation pay
in lieu of
reinstatement.
Employer-employee
relationship - Seafarers are
contractual employees;
employment of seafarers are
for a fixed period only
Page 73
Cannot be considered as a
regular employee
notwithstanding work
performed is necessary and
desirable.
th
Year.
PD 851 contemplates the situation of land-based workers,
and not of seafarers who generally earn more than
domestic land-based workers.
Page 75
G.R. 158075
30 June 2006
J. Carpio Morales
Award of backwages in
cases of ULP strikes, rests on
courts discretion and only in
exceptional cases.
No backwages rule;
Exceptions
G.R. 147790
27 June 2006
J. Austria-Martinez
Termination of employment
by employer Art. 282 Just
Causes; Burden of proof rests
on the employer.
Willful disobedience or
Date of Filing: 18
November 1996
Date of Decision
NLRC: 30 June 1999
31 August 1999 (MR)
Labor Arbiter
found there is
valid cause to
dismiss
complainant.
NLRC affirmed
the Decision of
LA.
CA reversed
the Decision of
the NLRC and
found there is
illegal
dismissal;
ordered to pay
separation pay
and full
backwages;
remanded to
LA for
computation.
SC reversed the
CA Decision
and reinstated
the NLRC
Decision.
Page 77
Management Prerogative.
Transfer of employee.
Termination
Due process
LA declared
dismissal illegal &
directed
respondent to pay
separation and
backwages, as
well as unpaid
wages and
commissions
NLRC declared
that dismissal was
for just cause
Page 79
MR
12 July 2006 - SC
Dismissal
27 January 1998
NLRC , denied MR
27 April 2001 CA,
denied MR
12 July 2006 - SC
LA ordered
reinstatement to
former position
without loss of
seniority rights with
full backwages.
NLRC set aside LA
decision and went
on dismissing the
case for lack of
merit
CA sustained the
Page 80
penalized.
Due process
Illegal Dismissal
Illegal dismissal
The rule in labor cases is that the employer has the burden
of proving that the dismissal was for a just cause; failure to
show this would necessarily mean that the dismissal was
[17]
unjustified and, therefore, illegal. The two-fold
requirements for a valid dismissal are as follows: (1)
dismissal must be for a cause provided for in the Labor
Code, which is substantive; and (2) the observance of notice
and hearing prior to the employees dismissal, which is
procedural.
SC dismissed
petition for lack of
merit.
LA found that
respondent was
illegally dismissed
NLRC affirmed the
LAs Decision
CA dismissed the
petition and
affirmed in toto the
NLRC Decision
SC affirmed CA
LA ruled that
petitioners were
Page 81
intention
whatsoever
to
abandon
their
employment. Human experience tells us that no employee
in his right mind would go through the trouble of filing a
case unless the employer had indeed terminated the
services of the employee. The Court reiterated the longstanding rule that the filing of the complaint for illegal
dismissal negates the allegation of abandonment.
GSP
MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION
and
CHARO
APACIBLE vs. PAULINA CABANBAN
Illegal Dismissal
dismissal
21 June1994 LA
15 June1995 NLRC,
denied MR
13 March 2001 CA,
denied MR
27 July 2006 SC
illegally dismissed
NLRC reversed and
set aside the LAs
decision
CA reinstated LA
decision with
modification
SC affirmed CA
decision with
modification
LA found
respondents guilty
of illegal dismissal
NLRC issued a
resolution
affirming in toto the
decision of the LA
CA affirmed LA
Decision
Illegal Dismissal
8 March 1999
Complaint for illegal
dismissal
24 October 2000
NLRC denied MR
27 july 2006 - SC
SC affirmed CA
LA and NLRC ruled
that there was no
illegal dismissal
SC REMANDED to
the CA for further
proceedings
Page 82
Illegal Dismissal
Page 83
VICTORIA
SC reversed and
remanded to the LA
for re-computation
of backwages and
commissions
Illegal Dismissal
of
responsibility,
imbued
with
trust
and
LA ordered for
reinstatement
NLRC vacated the
decision to be
remand to LA
LA dismissed for
lack of merit
SC affirmed
Page 84
2005
PNOC-EDC, ET.AL. vs. ABELLA
Reinstatement
Waiver/Compromise Agreement
Reinstatement
Waiver/Compromi
se Agreement
Page 85
Management Prerogative.
Management
Prerogative.
Page 86
LA
NLRC 30 August 1999;
28 January 2000 (on MR)
CA-16 November 2000
LA- declared
termination illegal
and ordered
reinstatement with
full backwages and
separation pay if
reinstatement is
not possible
NLRC affirmed
in toto the LA (30
August 1999); on
MR, modified its
earlier decision,
reversing and
setting aside the
awards of
backwages,
service incentive
leave pay.
Respondents
entitled to a
separation pay
equivalent to one
month plus
P2,000.00 as
indemnification
for its failure to
observe due
process in
Page 87
effecting the
retrenchment.
CA reversed the
NLRC 28 January
2000 decision;
ordered petitioner
to pay
respondents
equivalent to one
(1) month salary,
the proportionate
th
13 month pay
and, in addition,
full backwages
from the time
their employment
was terminated
on August 29,
1997 up to the
finality of
Decision
SC fixed the
amount of
indemnity to
P50,000.00
ME-SHURN CORP. AND SAMMY
CHOU vs. ME-SHURN WORKERS
UNION-FSM AND ROSALINA
CRUZ
Page 88
Retrenchment
LA upheld the
retrenchment
program
NLRC reversed
LA - 06 August 199
CA affirmed NLRC
NLRC 11 October 2000
SC - affirmed CA
CA 31 January 2002
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
xxx
whichever is higher.
Probationary employment
LA undated decision
NLRC - 29 February
2000
CA -
LA EE illegally
dismissed
NLRC reversed LA
CA reinstated LA
decision
SC modified CA
decision;
respondent was
dismissed for a just
cause but petitioner
was ordered to pay
nominal damages in
the amount of
P30,000.00
[16]
Page 93
Page 94
HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA
STARKE, INC./HORTENCIA L.
STARKE vs. CANDIDO CUENCA,
et.al.
LA 06 October 1997
NLRC 24 July 1998
CA 31 July 2001; 24
September 2001 (MR)
LA illegal
dismissal
NLRC LA decision
was affirmed with
modification ;
ordered payment of
holiday pay
CA deleted award
for payment of
holiday pay and
premium pay on
holiday
SC - affirmed CA
LA EE was
illegally dismissed
LA 31 July 1998
NLRC affirmed in
toto LA
NLRC 23 November
1999
CA - dismissed the
petition and
Page 95
Closure of establishments.
Management Prerogatives.
affirmed NLRC
CA - 18 January 2002
SC affirmed CA
decision in toto
Page 96
Closure of Establishments.
Reinstatements.
Award of Damages.
2004
TEXON MANUFACTURING, ET
PHILIPS
SEMICONDUCTORS
(PHILS.), INC. vs. ELOISA
FADRIQUELA
G.R. No. 141717 14 April 2004
J. Callejo, Sr.
CA affirmed NLRC;
SC affirmed CA
Page 98
Page 99
EMCO
PLYWOOD
CORPORATION, ET AL. vs.
PERFERIO ABELGAS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 148532 14 April 2004
J. Panganiban
Causes of TerminationRetrenchment
Separation Pay
Page 100
LA - 10 June 1993
NLRC- 20 March 1996
LA-held
that
respondent and the
other
five
employees
were
Page 101
illegally dismissed
from employment
and
ordering
petitioner (1) to
reinstate them to
their
former
positions and (2) to
pay
their
backwages
and
moral
and
exemplary damages
and attorneys fees
equivalent to 10%
of the monetary
awards.
NLRC- rendered a
Decision
dated
affirming
the
Arbiters Decision
with modification in
the sense that the
award
of
backwages,
damages
and
attorneys fees was
deleted.
CACourt
of
Appeals granted the
petition
and
reinstated
the
Arbiters award of
backwages.
SC- AFFIRMED
with
MODIFICATION in
Page 102
R TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
ER-EE
Just cause
Abandonment
Procedural Due Process
Petitioner is barred to negate the existence of an employeremployee relationship. In its petition filed before this
Court, petitioner invoked our rulings on the right of an
employer to dismiss an employee for just cause. Petitioner
maintained that private respondent was justifiably
dismissed due to abandonment of work. By adopting said
rulings, petitioner impliedly admitted that it was in fact the
employer of private respondent. According to the control
test, the power to dismiss an employee is one of the
indications of an employer-employee relationship.
Petitioners claim that private respondent was legally
dismissed for abandonment was in fact a negative
pregnant: an acknowledgement that there was no mutual
termination of the alleged contract of lease and that private
respondent was its employee. The fact that petitioner paid
private respondent on commission basis did not rule out
the presence of an employee-employer relationship.
Article 97(f) of the Labor Code clearly provides that an
employees wages can be in the form of commissions.
To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1)
the failure to report for work or absence without valid or
justifiable reason and (2) a clear intention to sever the
LA- 23February1997
NLRC-30 May 1997
CA-22December 2000
SC-20 May 2004
Page 103
CA denied the
petition for lack of
merit and affirmed
LA and NLRC.
SC denied the
petition for lack of
merit and affirmed
LA, NLRC and CA.
ER-EE
Kinds of Employees Regular or
Casual
for
purposes
of
determining their rights to certain
benefits, such as to join or form a
union, or to security of tenure.
Payment by commission/s.
LA
rendered
declaring
respondents to pay
jointly and severally
complainant
his
awarded separation
pay, back wages
(partial)
unpaid
commissions,
refund
of
deductions,
damages
and
attorneys fees.
NLRC reversed the
Page 104
decision of the
Labor Arbiter and
dismissed
the
instant case for lack
of cause of action.
CA denied
petition.
the
SC affirmed the CA
decision
denying
petitioners appeal.
Page 105
Illegal dismissal
to return to work
even after the SOLE
already issued a
RTWO
effective
August 31, 1994.
CA partially granted
the petition in the
sense that the
complaint for the
payment of the
money claims of the
27 employees are
granted and private
respondent
is
hereby ordered to
pay the money
claims
of
the
twenty-seven (27)
employees
while
the rest of the
assailed decision is
affirmed in all other
respects.
FERNANDO GOvs.
COURT OF APPEALS and MOLDEX
PRODUCTS, INC.,
Constructive dismissal
SC
denied
the
petition
and
affirmed the CA
decision.
NLRC found the
dismissal of the
complainant to be
illegal
ordered
respondent to pay
complainant
his
backwages and his
separation pay and
10% of the total
Page 107
award as attorneys
fees.
NLRC modified its
decision in a later
resolution
which
deleted the award
of attorney's fees
for lack of factual
basis but affirmed
the rest of the
Labor
Arbiter's
award.
CA set aside and
annulled the twin
resolutions of the
NLRC.
SC
denied
the
petition
and
affirmed the CA
decision.
Page 108
Illegal Dismissal
Probationary Employees
LA dismissed the
complaint on the
ground that: (1)
respondents were
able to prove that
petitioner
was
apprised of the
standards
for
becoming a regular
employee;
(2)
respondent
Mamaradlos
affidavit
showed
that petitioner "did
not perform well in
his assigned work
and his attitude was
below
par
compared to the
companys standard
required of him"
and (3) petitioners
dismissal
on
November 20, 1996
was before his
"regularization,"
considering
that,
counting from May
20, 1996, the sixmonth probationary
period ended on
November
20,
1996..
NLRC affirmed LA.
Page 109
CA affirmed NLRC.
SC
denied
petition
affirmed CA.
ER-EE
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
SECURITY OF TENURE
GR No. 138051
10 June 2004
J. CARPIO
the
and
LA dismissed the
complaint for lack
of jurisdiction.
NLRC affirmed the
LA decision.
Page 110
less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is
considered an independent contractor.
ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that
33
produced the finished product of SONZAs work. ABSCBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform his job. ABSCBN merely reserved the right to modify the program
format and airtime schedule "for more effective
34
programming." ABS-CBNs sole concern was the quality
of the shows and their standing in the ratings. Clearly, ABSCBN did not exercise control over the means and methods
of performance of SONZAs work.
Not every form of control that a party reserves to himself
over the conduct of the other party in relation to the
services being rendered may be accorded the effect of
establishing an employer-employee relationship. The facts
of this case fall squarely with the case of Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. NLRC. In said case, we held that:
Logically, the line should be drawn between rules
that merely serve as guidelines towards the
achievement of the mutually desired result
without dictating the means or methods to be
employed in attaining it, and those that control or
fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party
hired to the use of such means. The first, which
aim only to promote the result, create no
employer-employee relationship unlike the
second, which address both the result and the
means used to achieve it.
The right of labor to security of tenure as guaranteed in the
Constitution arises only if there is an employer-employee
relationship under labor laws. Not every performance of
services for a fee creates an employer-employee
relationship. To hold that every person who renders
Survey of Jurisprudence on Termination and Security of Tenure
Page 111
*Nothing is mentioned
about the dates of
promulgation of the
decisions of the LA,
NLRC and CA.
SC- 29 June 2004
LA
ruled
that
petitioner
was
illegally dismissed.
NLRC reversed the
findings of the LA
and dismissed the
complaint for lack
of merit.
CA upheld
NLRC.
the
SC dismissed the
Survey of Jurisprudence on Termination and Security of Tenure
Page 112
be followed:
1. the loss of confidence must not be
simulated;
2. it should not be used as a subterfuge for
causes which are illegal, improper or
unjustified;
3. it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face
of overwhelming evidence to the contrary;
4. it must be genuine, not a mere
afterthought, to justify earlier action taken in
bad faith; and
5. the employee involved holds a position of
trust and confidence.
In the case at bar, petitioner held a position of trust
and confidence as the regular branch cashier and
acting branch manager of respondents J.P. Rizal
branch. Petitioner was utterly negligent in performing
his duties as acting branch manager. The scam
perpetrated by Paras could have been easily detected
had petitioner conscientiously done his job in carefully
overseeing the branchs operations. Respondent bank
therefore had reason to lose its trust and confidence
and to impose the penalty of dismissal on him.
MITSUBISHI
PHILIPPINES
petitioner,
MOTORS
CORPORATION,
Illegal Dismissal
Just/Authorized Causes
Reinstatement/backwages
VA-03November1997
CA-13September2000
Voluntary
Arbitrator
(VA)
rendered a decision
Page 113
vs.
CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES LABOR
UNION and NELSON PARAS,
respondents.
GR No. 148738
29 June 2004
J. CALLEJO SR.
of an employee:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by
the employee of the lawful orders of the employer
or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of
his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the
trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the
employee against the person of his employer or of
any immediate member of his family or his duly
authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
It is a settled doctrine that the employer has the burden of
proving the lawfulness of his employees dismissal. The
validity of the charge must be clearly established in a
manner consistent with dueprocess.
Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an unsatisfactory
rating can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to
gross and habitual neglect of duties. Gross negligence has
been defined to be the want or absence of even slight care
or diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the
safety of person or property. It evinces a thoughtless
disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to
avoid them.
Considering that respondent Paras was not dismissed for a
just or authorized cause, his dismissal from employment
was illegal. Furthermore, the petitioners failure to inform
him of any charges against him deprived him of due
process. Clearly, the termination of his employment based
on his alleged unsatisfactory performance rating was
effected merely to cover up and "deodorize" the illegality of
his dismissal.
SC-29June2004
finding
the
dismissal of Paras
valid for his failure
to
pass
the
probationary
standards
of
MMPC.
CA reversed the
ruling
of
the
Voluntary
Arbitrator holding
the dismissal of
Paras illegal and
ordered the latters
reinstatement and
payment
of
backwages.
SC affirmed the CA
decision
with
modifications. The
petitioner
was
ordered to pay
respondent Paras
separation
pay
equivalent to one
(1) month, or to at
least one-half (1/2)
month pay for every
year of service,
whichever is higher,
a fraction of at least
six (6) months to be
considered as one
Page 114
Page 115
R.P.
DINGLASAN
CONSTRUCTION, INC., petitioner,
vs.
MARIANO
ATIENZA
and
SANTIAGO ASI, respondents.
Illegal Dismissal
Abandonment of Work
Constructive Dismissal
GR No. 156104
29 June 2004
J. PUNO
LA-03September 1998
NLRC Nothing is
mentioned regarding
the date of
promulgation.
LA
found
that
private respondents
were
illegally
dismissed
from
service and ordering
their reinstatement.
CA affirmed LA and
NLRC.
SC affirmed CA
Page 116
LA-termination
valid
J. Carpio Morales
NLRC-upheld LA
CA-31 July 2000
SC-27 July 2004
CA-reversed
NLRC
SC-affirmed CA
PENTAGON
INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPING INC., VS. WILLIAM B.
ADELANTAR
G. R. No. 157373
27 July 2004
J. Ynares-Santiago
A seafarer, is not a regular employee as defined in Article
280 of the Labor Code. Hence, he is not entitled to full
backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as
provided in Article 279 of the Labor Code. As we held in
Survey of Jurisprudence on Termination and Security of Tenure
LA-1999
NLRC
CA-26 September 2002
LA-held
dismissal
illegal
that
was
NLRC-affirmed
LA
CA;
Page 117
illegal dismissal
preventive suspension
petitioner ordered
to pay unexpired
portion
of
contract plus 10%
of the award as
attorneys fees
LA-11 December 1998
NLRC-07 July 1999
CA-22 August 2000
LA-dismissal valid
but
preventive
suspension
without
basis;
award
of
attorneys fees
Page 118
Abandonment
Illegal dismissal
Separation pay
Financial assistance
LA No illegal
dismissal;
Complainants
abandoned their
jobs. Case
dismissed.
NLRC awarded
financial assistance;
CA- deleted award
of financial
assistance;
SC reinstated LAs
decision
Page 119
Illegal strike
Illegal dismissal
G.R. 149610
20 August 2004
J. Ynares-SAntiago
LA 28 October 1994
illegal strike, valid
dismissal
LA illegal strike,
valid dismissal
SC 20 August 2004
SC LA affirmed,
awarded financial
assistance to Pinero
on compassionate
justice
Page 120
Illegal dismissal
Constructive dismissal
Separation pay
Retirement pay
LA - 18 October 1995
LA dismissed
complaint
SC - 24 August 2008
SC LA decision
reversed.
Complainant was
constructively
dismissed; entitled
to reinstatement
and back wages.
Date of Decision:
LA -16 February 2000
CA-28 September 2001
SC -1 September 2004
The fact that the WORKERS have been employed with the
COMPANY for several years on various projects, the
longest being nine (9) years, did not automatically make
them regular employees considering that the definition of
regular employment in Article 280 of the Labor Code,
makes specific exception with respect to project
employment. The re-hiring of petitioners on a project-toproject basis did not confer upon them regular employment
status. The practice was dictated by the practical
consideration that experienced construction workers are
more preferred. It did not change their status as project
employees.
CA- Reversed LA
and NLRC
SC- Affirmed CA
decision
Date of Decision:
LA- April 17, 2000
LA- rendered
decision dismissing
the complaint for
illegal dismissal.
NLRC- affirmed LA
decision.
CA- reversed LA
and NLRC decision.
Their dismissal as
project employees
declared as illegal.
SC- reversed CA
decision. The
termination of
employment of
project employees
is declared valid and
legal.
Page 122
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS
PHILIPPINES, INC vs. VITAL
G.R. No. 154384
September
13, 2004
J. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Date of Decision:
LA - 7 August 1998
NLRC - 17 March 1999
CA- 30 April 2002
SC- 13 September 2004
NLRC- reversed LA
decision
CA- Affirmed NLRC
Decision
SC- AFFIRMED CA
with
MODIFICATION th
at in lieu of
reinstatement,
respondent is
awarded separation
pay plus full back
wages, and other
privileges and
benefits, or their
monetary
equivalent, during
the period of his
dismissal up to his
supposed actual
reinstatement.
DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF
Date of Decision:
NCMB- rendered
Page 123
Pharmaceutical Company
prohibiting its employees from
marrying employees of any
competitor company.
Constructive dismissal
Grievance Machinery- no
settlement
NCMB- for voluntary
Arbitration
CA- 19 May 2003
SC- 17 September 2004
Page 124
Termination of Managerial
employee- security of tenure
Date of Decision:
LA-30 April 1997
CA- reinstated LA
decision
SC- Affirmed CA
Date of Decision:
NCMB- rendered
Page 126
Grievance Machinery- no
settlement
NCMB- for voluntary
Arbitration
CA- 19 May 2003
SC- 17 September 2004
CA-Affirmed NCMB
decision as valid
exercise of
management
prerogative
SC- Affirmed CA
Date of Decision:
LA- rendered
Page 127
PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 149629
04 October 2004
J. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Page 128
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
LABOR (NFL) vs. CA
G.R. No. 149464
19 October 2004
J. CALLEJO, SR.
Validity of quitclaims
Date of Decision:
LA-24 November 1998
NLRC-19 May 1999
CA- 07 May 2001
SC- 19 October 2004
SC- Affirmed CA
Decision
Page 129
Page 130
Termination of Managerial
employee.
Cause of termination-Resignation
Date of Decision:
LA- 16 February 1999
NLRC-20 October 1999
CA- 19 July , 2002
SC-19 October 2004
Page 132
G.R. 156963
11 November 2004
J. Chico-Nazario
Discrimination
L.A-complainant
not illegally
dismissed
N.L.R.C- affirmed
the decision of L.A.
C.A. reversed the
decision of NLRC;
payment of
separation pay in
lieu of
reinstatement, full
backwages inclusive
of allowances and
other benefits or
monetary benefits;
case was remanded
to L.A. for the
determination of
monetary liabilities
of private
respondents;
Payment of
exemplary and
Page 133
Constructive dismissal
Page 134
Abandonment
G.R. 158693
17 November 2004
J. Ynares-Santiago
Just causes
L.A. 28
December 1999
N.L.R.C.C.A.- 23 January
2003
SC 17
November 2004
L.A illegal
dismissal; payment
of backwages;
payment of
separation pay in
lieu of
reinstatement;
payment of holiday
pay and service
incentive pay as
well as premium
pay for holiday and
rest days;
NLRC reversed
the decision of LA;
petitioners
abandoned their
work, therefore not
entitled to
separation pay and
backwages; denial
of other monetary
claims for lack of
evidence
Page 135
C.A.- no illegal
dismissal rather the
petitioners
abandoned their
employment; the
decision of NLRC
was reversed only
insofar as the
dismissal of money
claims.
SC- Affirmed with
Modification;
private respondent
was ordered to pay
nominal damages
for non compliance
with statutory due
process
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Dismissal
G.R. 159738
09 December 2004
J. Callejo, Sr.
Date of Filing:
(NLRC) 18 May 1999
-for illegal dismissal
Date of Decision:
LA- 19 October 2000
NLRC- 29 November
2001
SC: Affirmed
G.R. 138379
25 November 2004
J. Austria-Martinez
Date of Filing:
(NLRC) 28 March 1995
Date of Decision:
LA- 31 October 1995
LA-payment of
separation pay;
refund of bond plus
10 % attorneys fees
NLRC- Affirmed
CA- Affirmed
Page 140
worker.
The management prerogative to transfer personnel must
be exercised without grave abuse of discretion and
putting to mind the basic elements of justice and fair play.
There must be no showing that it is unnecessary,
inconvenient and prejudicial to the displaced employee.
Date of Filing:
Sub-Regional
Arbitration branch of
NLRC: 18 November
1996
Labor Arbiter :
Dismissed
Page 141
Closure as a management
prerogative
Date of Filing:
10 October 1994
(illegal dismissal)
Labor Arbiter:
Dismissed
NLRC: Affirmed
(MR) Denied
CA: Affirmed
SC: Granted;
decision of CA
was set aside;
the petitioner
was declared
Date of Decision:
LA:16 October 1996
NLRC: 20 March 1998
(MR) 07 May 1998
CA: 21 May 2001
(MR): 07 August 2002
Page 142
Loss of confidence
illegally
dismissed;
payment of full
backwages and
separation pay.
Page 143