You are on page 1of 7

1. PLDT vs.

BALBASTRO AND NLRC


DISMISSAL; PREVIOUS INFRACTION
- It must be borne in mind that the basic principle in
termination cases is that the burden of proof rests
upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for
just and valid cause and failure to do so would
necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified
and, therefore, was illegal. For dismissal to be valid,
the evidence must be substantial and not arbitrary
and must be founded on clearly established facts.
- Previous infractions may be used as justification for
an employees dismissal from work in connection
with a subsequent similar offense. Moreover, it is in
petitioners rules and regulations that the same
offense committed within the three-year period
merits the penalty of dismissal. The CAs finding that
petitioner may not rely on the previous absences of
private respondent in 1978 and 1982 to show abuse
of sick leave privileges has no basis since private
respondent was dismissed for committing her three
unauthorized absences all in 1989.
2. PUNZAL vs. ETSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS; SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY
- It is the prerogative of management to regulate,
according to its discretion and judgment, all aspects
of employment. This flows from the established rule
that labor law does not authorize the substitution of
the judgment of the employer in the conduct of its
business. Such management prerogative may be
availed of without fear of any liability so long as it is
exercised in good faith for the advancement of the
employers interest and not for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing the rights of employees
under special laws or valid agreement and are not
exercised in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive
or wanton manner or out of malice or spite.
3. FILIPINAS PORT SERVICES, INC. vs. GO
MANAGEMENT FUCNTION ; OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION
1

Cheska Bautista * Labor 1 * Atty. Jimeno

Besides, the determination of the necessity for


additional offices and/or positions in a corporation is
a management prerogative which courts are not wont
to review in the absence of any proof that such
prerogative was exercised in bad faith or with malice.

4. STAR PAPER CORPORATION VS. SIMBOL


INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; RETAINERSHIP
- The courts that have broadly construed the term
"marital status" rule that it encompassed the identity,
occupation and employment of one's spouse. They
strike down the no-spouse employment policies
based on the broad legislative intent of the state
statute. They reason that the no-spouse employment
policy violate the marital status provision because it
arbitrarily discriminates against all spouses of
present employees without regard to the actual effect
on
the
individual's
qualifications
or
work
performance. These courts also find the no-spouse
employment policy invalid for failure of the employer
to present any evidence of business necessity
other than the general perception that spouses in the
same workplace might adversely affect the business.
They hold that the absence of such a bona fide
occupational qualification invalidates a rule
denying employment to one spouse due to the
current employment of the other spouse in the same
office. Thus, they rule that unless the employer can
prove that the reasonable demands of the business
require a distinction based on marital status and
there is no better available or acceptable policy
which would better accomplish the business purpose,
an employer may not discriminate against an
employee based on the identity of the employees
spouse. This is known as the bona fide
occupational qualification exception.
5. COCA COLA BOTTLERS VS. CLIMACO
JOB
QUALIFICATION,
QUALIFICATIONS
AND
CREDENTIALS

BETTER

There is nothing wrong with the employment of a


doctors as a retained physician of petitioner
company. Where there is no employer-employee
relationship between the parties, the termination of
the Retainership Agreement, which is in accordance
with the provisions of the Agreement, does not
constitute illegal dismissal of the retained physician.
6. ST. LUKES MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION-AFW VS. NLRC
EFFECT OF QUITCLAIM ; NOT A BAR TO CLAIM
- Persons who desire to engage in the learned
professions
requiring
scientific
or
technical
knowledge may be required to take an examination
as a prerequisite to engaging in their hosen careers.
The regulation of the field of radiologic and x-ray
technology is a reasonable method of protecting the
health and safety of the public to protect the public
from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence
and ignorance among those who would practice such
technology.

understanding of what he was doing, and the


consideration for the quitclaim is credible and
reasonable,
the
transaction
must
be
recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.
-

7. SOLGUS CORPORATION VS. CA


FIELD PERSONNEL; TESTS
-

In Periquet v. National Labor Relations Commission,


the guideposts to determine validity of affidavits of
desistance were set, thus:
o Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as
against public policy. If the agreement was
voluntarily entered into and represents a
reasonable settlement, it is binding on the
parties and may not later be disowned simply
because of a change of mind. It is only where
there is clear proof that the waiver was
wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible
person, or the terms of settlement are
unconscionable on its face, that the law will
step in to annul the questionable transaction.
But where it is shown that the person making
the waiver did so voluntarily, with full
2

Cheska Bautista * Labor 1 * Atty. Jimeno

Quitclaims, releases and other waivers of benefits


granted by law or contracts in favor of workers should
be strictly scrutinized to protect the weak and the
disadvantaged. The waivers should be carefully
examined, in regard not only to the words and terms
used, but also to the factual circumstances under
which they have been executed. Under prevailing
jurisprudence, a deed of release or quitclaim cannot
bar an employee from demanding benefits to which
he is legally entitled. It is the employers duty to
prove that such quitclaims were voluntary. The mere
fact that the respondents were not physically coerced
or intimidated does not necessarily imply that they
freely or voluntarily consented to the terms thereof.
The law looks with disfavor upon quitclaims and
releases by employees pressured into signing the
same by unscrupulous employers minded to evade
legal responsibilities. Settled is the rule that
quitclaims are ineffective in barring full recovery of
the benefits due the employee.

8. FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL


LEBATIQUE
FIELD PERSONNEL ; REQUISITE
-

SUPPLY,

INC

VS.

"Field personnel" shall refer to non-agricultural


employees who regularly perform their duties away
from the principal place of business or branch office
of the employer and whose actual hours of work in
the field cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty.
In Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, this
Court emphasized that the definition of a "field
personnel" is not merely concerned with the location

where the employee regularly performs his duties but


also with the fact that the employees performance is
unsupervised by the employer. We held that field
personnel are those who regularly perform their
duties away from the principal place of business of
the employer and whose actual hours of work in the
field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Thus, in order to determine whether an employee is a
field employee, it is also necessary to ascertain if
actual hours of work in the field can be determined
with reasonable certainty by the employer. In so
doing, an inquiry must be made as to whether or not
the employees time and performance are constantly
supervised by the employer.
-

Drivers, like Lebatique, are under the control and


supervision of management officers. Lebatique,
therefore, is a regular employee whose tasks are
usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade
and business of the company. Thus, he is entitled to
the benefits accorded to regular employees of Far
East, including overtime pay and service incentive
leave pay.

9. JOHN MCLEOD VS. NLRC


VACATION AND SICK LEAVES; COVERAGE
- As Vice President/Plant Manager, McLeod is a
managerial employee who is excluded from the
coverage of Title I, Book Three of the Labor Code.
McLeod is entitled to payment of vacation leave and
sick leave only if he and PMI had agreed on it. The
payment of vacation leave and sick leave depends on
the policy of the employer or the agreement between
the employer and employee. In the present case,
there is no showing that McLeod and PMI had an
agreement concerning payment of these benefits.
- Also unavailing is McLeods claim that he was entitled
to the "unpaid monetary equivalent of unused plane
tickets for the period covering 1989 to 1992 in the
amount of P279,300.00." PMI has no company policy
3

Cheska Bautista * Labor 1 * Atty. Jimeno

granting its officers and employees expenses for trips


abroad. That at one time PMI reimbursed McLeod for
his and his wifes plane tickets in a vacation to
London could not be deemed as an established
practice considering that it happened only once. To
be considered a "regular practice," the giving of the
benefits should have been done over a long period,
and must be shown to have been consistent and
deliberate.
10.
CAPAROSO VS. CA
FIXED TERM EMPLOYMENT; REQUISITES
- Even if an employee is engaged to perform activities
that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or
business of the employer, it does not preclude the
fixing of employment for a definite period.
- The Court thus laid down the criteria under which
fixed-term employment could not be said to be in
circumvention of the law on security of tenure, thus:
o

1. The fixed period of employment was


knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the
parties without any force, duress, or improper
pressure being brought to bear upon the
employee and absent any other circumstances
vitiating his consent; or

2. It satisfactorily appears that the employer


and the employee dealt with each other on
more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance exercised by the former or the
latter.

11.
ROWELL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION VS.
CA
FIXED TERM EMPLOYMENT; REQUISITES
- The aforesaid Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
amended, however, does not proscribe or prohibit an
employment contract with a fixed period. It does not

necessarily follow that where the duties of the


employee consist of activities usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business of the employer, the
parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period of
time for the performance of such activities. There is
nothing essentially contradictory between a definite
period of employment and the nature of the
employee's duties.
12.
PASAMBA VS. NLRC
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
- The law does not preclude the employer from
terminating the probationary employment, if the
employer finds that the probationary employee is
qualified for regular employment. The law, in
protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither
the oppression nor the self-destruction of the
employer.
- The provision which states that the probationary
period shall not exceed six months means that the
probationary employee may be dismissed for cause
at any time before the expiration of six months after
hiring.
13.
SUPREME STEEL PIPE CORPORATION VS.
BARDAJE
JUST CAUSE; SERIOUS MISCONDUCT REQUIREMENTS
- In this jurisdiction, we have consistently defined
misconduct as an improper or wrong conduct, a
transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, implies wrongful intent and not mere error
of judgment. To be a just cause for termination under
Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the
misconduct must be serious, that is, it must be of
such grave and aggravated character and not merely
trivial or unimportant.
- Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a
just cause for dismissal,
o (a) it must be serious;
4

Cheska Bautista * Labor 1 * Atty. Jimeno

o
o

(b) it must relate to the performance of the


employees duties; and,
(c) it must show that the employee has
become unfit to continue working for the
employer.

14.
MARIVAL TRADING VS. NLRC
JUST CAUSE; SERIOUS MISCONDUCT REQUIREMENTS
- The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave
and aggravated character and not merely trivial and
unimportant, Such misconduct, however serious,
must nevertheless be in connection with the
employees work to constitute just cause for his
separation.
- Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a
just cause for dismissal,
o (a) it must be serious;
o (b) it must relate to the performance of the
employees duties; and,
o (c) it must show that the employee has
become unfit to continue working for the
employer.
15.
NAVARRO VS. COCA COLA BOTTLERS
PHILS
JUST CAUSE; ABSENTEEISM
- A worker cannot be reasonably expected to anticipate
times of sickness nor emergency to require prior
notice of such times would be absurd. His absence
was due to a fortuitous event outside of petitioners
control. Petitioner had no wrongful, perverse or even
negligent attitude, intended to defy the order of his
employer when he absented himself.
16.
VICTORY LINER VS. RACE
ABANDONMENT; REQUISITES
- In illegal dismissal cases, the employee concerned is
given a period of four years from the time of his
dismissal within which to institute a complaint, which
shall commence to run only upon the accrual of a

cause of action of the worker. It is settled that in


illegal dismissal cases, the cause of action accrues
from the time the employment of the worker was
unjustly terminated.
Two factors must be present in order to constitute an
abandonment: (a) the failure to report for work or
absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (b) a
clear
intention
to
sever
employer-employee
relationship. The second factor is the more
determinative factor and is manifested by overt acts
from which it may be deduced that the employee has
no more intention to work. The intent to discontinue
the employment must be shown by clear proof that it
was deliberate and unjustified. Mere absence from
work does not imply abandonment.

17.
CANEDA VS. PAL
BREAACH OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE; NATURE OF
POSITION
- Article 282 of the Labor Code allows an employer to
dismiss an employee for willful breach of trust or loss
of confidence. The basic premise for dismissal on this
ground is that the employee concerned holds a
position of trust. A special and unique employment
relationship exists between a corporation and its
cashier. More than most key positions, that of cashier
calls for utmost trust and confidence. It is the breach
of this trust that results in an employers loss of
confidence in the employee.
- In dismissing a cashier on the ground of loss of
confidence, it is sufficient that there is some basis for
the same or that the employer has a reasonable
ground to believe that the employee is responsible
for the misconduct, thus making him unworthy of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.
18.
BAGO VS. NLRC
BREACH OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE; NATURE OF POSITION
- As a general rule, employers are allowed a wide
latitude of discretion in terminating the employment
of managerial personnel or those who, while not of
5

Cheska Bautista * Labor 1 * Atty. Jimeno

similar rank, perform functions which by their nature


require the employers full trust and confidence. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt is not required. It is
sufficient that there is some basis for loss of
confidence, such as when the employer has
reasonable ground to believe that the employee
concerned is responsible for the purported
misconduct, and the nature of his participation
therein renders him unworthy of the trust and
confidence demanded by his position. This must be
distinguished from the case of ordinary rank-and-file
employees, whose termination on the basis of these
same grounds requires a higher proof of involvement
in the events in question; mere uncorroborated
assertions and accusations by the employer will not
suffice.
19.
PANUNCILLO VS. CAP PHIL. INC
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; EFFECT OF ADMISSION
- Before terminating the services of an employee, the
law requires two written notices: (1) one to apprise
him of the particular acts or omissions for which his
dismissal is sought; and (2) the other to inform him of
his employers decision to dismiss him. As to the
requirement of a hearing, the essence of due process
lies in an opportunity to be heard, and not always and
indispensably in an actual hearing.
- When an employee admits the acts complained of, as
in petitioners case, no formal hearing is even
necessary.
20.
DULDAO VS. CA
REASSIGNMENT AS EMPLOYERS PROTECTIVE MEASURE
- We have long recognized the prerogative of
management to transfer an employee from one office
to another within the same business establishment,
as the exigency of the business may require,
provided that the transfer does not result in a
demotion in rank or a diminution in salary, benefits
and other privileges of the employee; or is not
unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the

latter; or is not used as a subterfuge by the employer


to rid himself of an undesirable worker. To the
employer belongs the prerogative to reassign an
employee to any of its departments as it sees fit,
provided that such reassignment is made in good
faith.
Reassignments made by management pending
investigation of irregularities allegedly committed by
an employee fall within the ambit of management
prerogative, and the order of transfer prior to the
submission of her answer cannot be deemed a
violation of her right to due process.
The purpose of reassignments is no different from
that of preventive suspension which management
could validly impose as a measure of protection of
the companys property pending investigation of any
malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the
employee.

21.
PIDO VS. NLRC PROLONGED
PERIOD OF SUSPENSION; EFFECT; FLOATING STATUS
- A floating status requires the dire exigency of the
employer's bona fide suspension of operation of a
business or undertaking. When a security guard is
placed on a "floating status," he does not receive any
salary or financial benefit provided by law.
- In the event the employer chooses to extend the
period of suspension, he is required to pay the wages
and other benefits due the worker and the worker is
not bound to reimburse the amount paid to him
during the extended period of suspension even if,
after the completion of the hearing or investigation,
the employer decides to dismiss him.
22.
ESPINA VS. MY SAN BISCUITS CORP
BUSINESS CLOSURE; REQUIREMENTS
- The phrase "closure or cessation of operations of
establishment or undertaking" includes a partial or
total closure or cessation, and the phrase "closure or
6

Cheska Bautista * Labor 1 * Atty. Jimeno

cessation not due to serious business losses or


financial reverses" recognizes the right of the
employer to close or cease its business operations or
undertaking even in the absence of serious business
losses or financial reverses, as long as he pays his
employees their termination pay in the amount
corresponding to their length of service.
The determination to cease operations is a
prerogative of management which the State does not
usually interfere with, as no business or undertaking
must be required to continue operating simply
because it has to maintain its workers in
employment, and such act would be tantamount to a
taking of property without due process of law.
Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, three
requirements are necessary for a valid cessation of
business operations, namely:
o

(1) service of a written notice to the employees


and to the DOLE at least one (1) month before
the intended date thereof;

(2) the cessation


character; and

(3) payment to the employees of termination


pay amounting to at least one half (1/2) month
pay for every year of service, or one (1) month
pay, whichever is higher.

must

be

bona

fide

in

The ultimate test of the validity of closure or


cessation of establishment or undertaking is that it
must be bona fide in character. And the burden of
proving such falls upon the employer.

23.
CRAYONS PROCESSING VS. PULA
TERMINATION ON GROUND OF DISEASE; REQUISITES
- It is only where there is a prior certification from a
competent public authority that the disease affecting
the employee sought to be dismissed is of such

nature or at such stage that it cannot be cured within


6 months even with proper medical treatment that
the latter could be validly terminated from his job.
The requirement of a medical certificate under Art.
284 of the Labor Code cannot be dispensed with.
24.
AGUILAR
VS.
BURGER
MACHINE
HOLDINGS CORP
REINSTATEMENT DOCTRINE OF STRAINED RELATIONS;
SEPARATION PAY FORMULA
- Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment
of separation pay has been considered an acceptable
alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is
no longer desirable or viable.
25.
JACULBE V. SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY
NATURE OF RETIREMENT; BASIS
- Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the
parties, a voluntary agreement between the
employer and the employee whereby the latter, after
reaching a certain age agrees to sever his or her
employment with the former.
- As already stated, an employer is free to impose a
retirement age less than 65 for as long as it has the
employees consent. Stated conversely, employees
are free to accept the employers offer to lower the
retirement age if they feel they can get a better deal
with the retirement plan presented by the employer.
-

Cheska Bautista * Labor 1 * Atty. Jimeno