You are on page 1of 564

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

Aguirre, Nolaida
2011-0087
ABELLA VS NLRC
G.R. No. 71818
Date: July 20, 1987
Petitioners: Rosalina Perez Abella/Hda. Danao-Ramona
Respondents: The Honorable National Labor Relations Commission, Romeo Quitco and Ricardo
Dionele, Sr.,
Ponente: Paras, J.

FACTS:
On June 27, 1960 the petioner, Rosalina Perez Abella leased a farm land known as Hacienda
Danao-Ramona, for a period of ten (10) years. She opted to extend the leased contract for another ten
(10) years. During the existence of the lease, she employed the private respondents Ricardo Dionele, Sr.,
and Romeo Quitco. Upon the expiration of her leasehold rights, petitioner dismissed private respondents
and turned over the hacienda to the owners thereof on October 5, 1981, who continued the management,
cultivation and operation of the farm.
On November 20, 1981, private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner at the
Ministry of Labor and Employment, Bacolod City District Office, for overtime pay, illegal dismissal and
reinstatement with backwages. After the parties had presented their respective evidence, Labor Arbiter
Manuel M. Lucas, Jr., in a Decision dated July 16, 1982, ruled that the dismissal is warranted by the
cessation of business, but granted the private respondents separation pay. Petitioner appealed, the
National Labor Relations Commission, in a Resolution affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal for
lack of merit. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence, the present
petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents are entitled to separation pay?

HELD:
The petition is devoid of merit. Article 284 of the Labor Code as amended by BP 130 is the law
applicable in this case. The purpose of Article 284 as amended is obvious-the protection of the workers
whose employment is terminated because of the closure of establishment and reduction of personnel.
Without said law, employees like private respondents in the case at bar will lose the benefits to which
they are entitled — for the thirty three years of service in the case of Dionele and fourteen years in the
case of Quitco. Although they were absorbed by the new management of the hacienda, in the absence of
any showing that the latter has assumed the responsibilities of the former employer, they will be
considered as new employees and the years of service behind them would amount to nothing.
It is well-settled that in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code
and its implementing regulations, the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount
consideration.
The instant petition is hereby dismissed and Decision of the Labor Arbiter and the resolution of the
ministry of labor and employment are hereby affirmed.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 1

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Aguirre, Nolaida
2011-0087
CALALANG VS WILLIAMS (Social Justice as the aim of Labor Laws)
G.R. No. 47800
Date: December 2, 1940
Petitioner: Maximo Calalang
Respondents: A.D. Williams, et al.,
Ponente: Laurel, J.

FACTS:
Maximo Calalang, private citizen and a tax payer prayed for the prohibition against the
respondents, A.D. Williams at al.,. In his petition, Calalang alleged that the National Traffic Commission,
in its resolution of July 17, 1940, resolved to recommend to the director of Public Works and to the
Secretary of Public Works and Communication that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited form passing
along the streets of Manila for a period of one year. The said resolution was enforced by the Mayor of
Manila and the Chief of Police of Manila, that as a consequence of such enforcement, all animal-drawn
vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick up passengers to the detriment not only of their owners but of
the riding public as well.
Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of the C.A. No. 548 which authorized the Secretary of
Public Works and Communication to promulgate rules and regulations for the regulation and control of the
use and traffic on the national road and streets. The said law became the basis of the resolution of July
17, 1940 prohibiting the animal-drawn vehicles from passing to some streets of the City of Manila.
One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the rules and regulations complained of
infringed upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of Social Justice to insure the well-being
and economic security of all the people.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the complained resolution infringes the constitutional precept of promoting Social
Justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people?
HELD:
The answer is in the negative, the promotion of Social Justice, is to be achieved not through a
mistaken sympathy towards any given group. Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy," but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces
by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be
approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members
of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extraconstitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the timehonored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence
among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly
extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all
persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number."

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 2

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Aguirre, Nolaida
2011-0087
CEREZO VS THE ATLANTIC & PACIFIC COMPANY
G.R. No. L-10107
Date: February 4, 1916
Plaintiff- appellant: Clara Cerezo
Defendant-appellant: The Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company
Ponente: Trent, J.

FACTS:
The deceased was an employee of the defendant as a day laborer on the 8th of July, 1913,
assisting in laying gas pipes on Calle Herran in the city of Manila. The digging of the trench was
completed both ways from the cross-trench in Calle Paz, and the pipes were laid therein up to that point.
The men of the deceased's gang were filling the west end, and there was no work in the progress at the
east end of the trench. Shortly after the deceased entered the trench at the east end to answer a call of
nature, the bank caved in, burying him to his neck in dirt, where he died before he could be released. It
has not been shown that the deceased had received orders from the defendant to enter the trench at this
point; nor that the trench had been prepared by the defendant as a place to be used as a water-closet;
nor that did the defendant acquiesce in the using of this place for these purposes. The trench at the place
where the accident occurred was between 3 and 4 feet deep. Nothing remained to be done there except
to refill the trench as soon as the pipes were connected. The refilling was delayed at that place until the
completion of the connection. At the time of the accident the place where the deceased's duty of refilling
the trench required him to be was at the west end. There is no contention that there was any danger
whatever in the refilling of the trench.
An action for damages was instated against the defendant for negligently causing the death of the
plaintiff's son, Jorge Ocumen, on the 7th of July, 1913
The plaintiff insists that the defendant was negligent in failing to shore or brace the trench at the
place where the accident occurred. While, on the other hand, the defendant urges (1) that it was under no
obligation, in so far as the deceased was concerned, to brace the trench, in the absence of a showing
that the soil was of a loose character or the place itself was dangerous, and (2) that although the relation
of master and servant may not have ceased, for the time being, to exist, the defendant was under no duty
to the deceased except to do him no intentional injury, and to furnish him with a reasonably safe place to
work.
udgment was entered in a favor of the plaintiff for the sum of ₱ 1,250.00, together with interest
and costs. Defendant appealed.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the plaintiff has a right to recover for damages under the Employer’s Liability Act
(Act No. 1874) or the Civil Code; and
2. Whether or not it is necessary to determine the effect of the former upon the law of industrial
accidents in this country?

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 3

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

HELD:
1. The Plaintiff cannot recover from neither laws, an overwhelming jurisprudence holds master was
bound to exercise that measure of care which reasonably prudent men take under similar
circumstances. But the master was not an insurer and was not required to provide the safest
possible plant or to adopt the latest improvements or to warrant against latent defects which a
reasonable inspection did not disclose. It was only necessary that the danger in the work be not
enhanced through his fault. It is provided further that;
the right of the master to shift responsibility for the performance of all or at least most of
these personal duties to the shoulders of a subordinate and thereby escape liability for
the injuries suffered by his workmen through his non-performance of these duties, was,
in England, definitely settled by the House of Lords in the case of Wilson vs. Merry (L.R.
1 H.L. Sc. Appl Cas., 326; 19 Eng. Rul. Cas., 132). This was just two years before the
enactment of the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and no doubt the full significance of
such a doctrine was one of the impelling causes which expedited the passage of the
Act, and chiefly accounts for the presence in it of subsection 1 of section 1.
The cause of Ocumen's death was not the weight of the earth which fell upon him, but
was due to suffocation. He was sitting or squatting when the slide gave way. Had he been even
half-erect, it is highly probable that he would have escaped suffocation or even serious injury.
Hence, the accident was of a most unusual character. Experience and common sense
demonstrate that ordinarily no danger to employees is to be anticipated from such a trench as
that in question. The fact that the walls had maintained themselves for a week, without indication
of their giving way, strongly indicates that the necessity for bracing or shoring the trench was
remote. To require the company to guard against such an accident as the one in question would
virtually compel it to shore up every foot of the miles of trenches dug by it in the city of Manila for
the gas mains. Upon a full consideration of the evidence, we are clearly of the opinion that
ordinary care did not require the shoring of the trench walls at the place where the deceased met
his death. The event properly comes within the class of those which could not be foreseen;
and, therefore, the defendant is not liable under the Civil Code (Article 1105, Civil Code).
2. Yes. Act No. 1874 is essentially a copy of the Massachusetts Employers' Liability Act. We now
come to the consideration of Act No. 1874 for the purpose of determining what effect this Act has
had upon the law of damages in personal injury cases in this country, bearing in mind that the
Act is, as we have indicated, essentially a copy of the Massachusetts Employers' Liability Act
which has "prevailed in the State of Massachusetts some years and upon which interpretations
have been made by the Massachusetts courts, defining the exact meaning of the provision of the
law." (Special report of the joint committee of the Philippine Legislature on the Employers'
Liability Act, Commission Journal 1908, p. 296.) We agree with the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts that the Act should be liberally construed in favor of employees. The main
purpose of the Act, as its title indicates, was to extend the liability of employers and to render
them liable in damages for certain classes of personal injuries for which it was thought they were
liable under the law prior to the passage of the Act.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 4

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Aguirre, Nolaida
2011-0087
COLGATE PALMOLIVE PHILIPPINES VS OPLE
G.R. No. 73681
Date: June 30, 1988
Petitioner: Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc.,
Respondent: Hon. Blas F. Ople and Colgate Palmolive Sales Union
Ponente: Paras, J.

FACTS:
On March 1, 1985, the respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor
Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain, dismissal of
union officers/members; and coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and
restraining non-union members from joining the union. After efforts at amicable settlement proved
unavailing, the Office of the MOLE, upon petition of petitioner assumed jurisdiction over the dispute
pursuant to Article 264 (g) of the Labor Code.
Colgate Palmolive Philippines, Inc in its position stated that there is no legal basis for the charge
that the company refused to bargain collectively with the union considering that the alleged union is not
the certified agent of the company salesmen. The union's status as a legitimate labor organization is still
under question because on March 6, 1985, a certain Monchito Rosales informed the BLR that an
overwhelming majority of the salesmen are not in favor of the Notice of Strike allegedly filed by the Union.
While the respondent Union, on the other hand, in its position paper, reiterated the issue in its Notice to
Strike, alleging that it was duly registered with the Bureau of Labor Relations.
On August 9,1985, respondent Minister rendered a decision which found no merit in the Union's
Complaint for unfair labor practice allegedly committed by petitioner as regards the alleged refusal of
petitioner to negotiate with the Union, and the secret distribution of survey sheets allegedly intended to
discourage unionism. It also found the three salesmen, Peregrino Sayson, Salvador Reynante & Cornelio
Mejia "not without fault" and that "the company has grounds to dismiss above named salesmen"
Respondent Minister directly certified the respondent Union as the collective bargaining agent for
the sales force in petitioner company and ordered the reinstatement of the three salesmen to the
company on the ground that the employees were first offenders. Hence, the Petitoner now seeks to set
and annul the order of then Minister Blas Ople.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not respondent Minister committed a grave abuse of discretion when he directly
certified the Union solely on the basis of the latter's self-serving assertion that it enjoys the
support of the majority of the sales force in petitioner's company? and;
2. Whether or not respondent Minister committed a grave abuse of discretion when, notwithstanding
his very own finding that there was just cause for the dismissal of the three (3) salesmen, he
nevertheless ordered their reinstatement.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 5

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

HELD:
1. Yes. The respondent Minister has the power to decide a labor dispute in a case assumed by him
under Art. 264 (g) of the Labor Code but this power was exceeded when he certified respondent
Union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the company's salesmen since this is not a
representation proceeding as described under the Labor Code. Moreover the Union did not pray
for certification but merely for a finding of unfair labor practice imputed to petitioner-company.
2. Yes. The order of the respondent Minister to reinstate the employees despite a clear finding of
guilt on their part is not in conformity with law. Reinstatement is simply incompatible with a finding
of guilt. Where the totality of the evidence was sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the
employees the law warrants their dismissal without making any distinction between a first
offender and a habitual delinquent. Under the law, respondent Minister is duly mandated to
equally protect and respect not only the labor or workers' side but also the management and/or
employers' side. The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor
self-destruction of the employer. To order the reinstatement of the erring employees namely,
Mejia, Sayson and Reynante would in effect encourage unequal protection of the laws as a
managerial employee of petitioner company involved in the same incident was already dismissed
and was not ordered to be reinstated. As stated by Us in the case of San Miguel Brewery vs.
National Labor Union, 2 "an employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the
employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his
employer, and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to his interest."

`
Judgment is hereby rendered reversing and setting aside the Order of the respondent Minister,
dated December 27, 1985 for grave abuse of discretion. However, in view of the fact that the dismissed
employees are first offenders, petitioner is hereby ordered to give them separation pay. The temporary
restraining order is hereby made permanent.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 6

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Aguirre, Nolaida
2011-0087
EURO-LINEA PHIL., INC., VS NLRC
G.R. No. 78782
Date: December 1, 1987
Petitioners: Euro-Linea Phil., Inc.
Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission and Jimmy O. Pastoral
Ponente: Paras, J.

FACTS:
On August 17, 1983, petitioner hired Pastoral as shipping expediter on a probationary basis for a
period of six months ending February 18, 1984. However, prior to hiring by petitioner, Pastoral had been
employed by Fitscher Manufacturing Corporation also as shipping expediter for more than one and a half
years. Pastoral was absorbed by petitioner but under a probationary basis. On February 4, 1984, Pastoral
received a memorandum terminating his probationary employment effective also on February 4, 1984 in
view of his failure to meet the performance standards set by the company. To contest his dismissal,
Pastoral filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner. The Labor Arbiter found petitioner guilty
of illegal dismissal and ordered to reinstate complainant with six months backwages. Petitioner appealed
the decision to the NLRC, but the appeal was dismissed.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess of jurisdiction in ruling against the dismissal of the respondent, a temporary
or probationary employee, by his employer (Petitioner)?
HELD:
In the instant case, it is evident that the NLRC correctly applied Article 282 in the light of the
foregoing and that its resolution is not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave
abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. Although a probationary or temporary employee has a limited
tenure, he still enjoys the constitutional protection of security of tenure. During his tenure of employment
or before his contract expires, he cannot be removed except for cause as provided for by law. Petitioner
not only failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate the cause of private respondent's dismissal,
but likewise failed to cite particular acts or instances to show the latter's poor performance.
It must be emphasized that the prerogative of management to dismiss or lay- off an employee
must be done without abuse of discretion, for what is at stake is not only petitioner's position but also his
means of livelihood…
Finally, it is significant to note that in the interpretation of the protection to labor and social justice
provisions of the constitution and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing the constitutional
mandate, the Supreme Court has always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor
rights

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 7

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Aguirre, Nolaida
2011-0087
GELMART INDUSTRIES PHIL., INC., VS NLRC
G.R. No. 85668
Date: August 10, 1989
Petitioner: GELMART Industries Phil., Inc.,
Respondents: Hon. National Labor Relations Commission and Felix Francis
Ponente: Gancayco, J.

FACTS:
Private respondent Felix Francis started working as an auto-mechanic for petitioner Gelmart
Industries Phils., Inc. sometime in 1971. As such, his work consisted of the repair of engines and
underchassis, as well as trouble shooting and overhauling of company vehicles. He is likewise entrusted
with some tools and spare parts in furtherance of the work assigned to him.
On April 11, 1987, private respondent was caught by the security guards taking out of
GELMART's premises one (1) plastic container filled with about 16 ounces of "used' motor oil, without the
necessary gate pass to cover the same as required under GELMART's rules and regulations. By reason
thereof, petitioner, on April 13, 1987, was placed under preventive suspension pending investigation for
violation of company rules and regulations. Under the said rules, theft and/or pilferage of company
property merits an outright termination from employment. After due investigation, or on May 20, 1987,
private respondent was found guilty of theft of company property. As a consequence, his services were
severed.
Thereafter, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC. In a
decision dated February 26, 1988, Labor Arbiter Ceferina J. Diosana ruled that private respondent was
illegally dismissed and, accordingly, ordered the latter's reinstatement with full backwages from April 13,
1987 up to the time of actual reinstatement.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent to
his former position with payment of backwages equivalent to six (6) months?
HELD:
No. Consistent with the policy of the State to bridge the gap between the underprivileged
workingmen and the more affluent employers, the NLRC rightfully tilted the balance in favor of the
workingmen — and this was done without being blind to the concomitant right of the employer to the
protection of his property.
Thus, without being too harsh to the employer, on the one hand, and naively liberal to labor, on
the other, the NLRC correctly pointed out that private respondent cannot totally escape liability for what is
patently a violation of company rules and regulations.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 8

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
To reiterate, be it of big or small commercial value, intended to be re-used or altogether disposed
of or wasted, the "used" motor oil still remains, in legal contemplation, the property of GELMART. As
such, to take the same out of GELMART's premises without the corresponding gate pass is a violation of
the company rule on theft and/or pilferage of company property. However, as this Court ruled in Meracap
vs. International Ceramics Mfg. Co., Inc., "where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps
may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. On this score, it is
very difficult for this Court to discern grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in
modifying the appealed decision. The suspension imposed upon private respondent is a sufficient
penalty for the misdemeanor committed.
Considering that private respondent herein has no previous derogatory record in his fifteen (15)
years of service with petitioner GELMART the value of the property pilfered (16 ounces of used motor oil)
is very minimal, plus the fact that petitioner failed to reasonably establish that non-dismissal of private
respondent would work undue prejudice to the viability of their operation or is patently inimical to the
company's interest, it is more in consonance with the policy of the State, as embodied in the Constitution,
to resolve all doubts in favor of labor…At this point, this Court does not see any reason to deviate from
the said ruling.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 9

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Aguirre, Nolaida
2011-0087
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS NLRC
G.R. No. 78763
Date: July 12,1989
Petitioner: Manila Electric Company
Respondents: The National Labor Relations Commission, and Apolinario M. Signo
Ponente: Medialdea, J.

FACTS:
In 1981, a certain Fernando de Lara filed an application with the petitioner company for electrical
services at his residence at Peñafrancia Subdivision, Marcos Highway, Antipolo, Rizal. Private
respondent Signo facilitated the processing of the said application as well as the required documentation
for said application at the Municipality of Antipolo, Rizal. In consideration thereof, private respondent
received from Fernando de Lara the amount of ₱ 7,000.00. Signo thereafter filed the application for
electric services with the Power Sales Division of the company. However, the residence of de Lara was
located is not yet within the serviceable point of Meralco, because the place was beyond the 30-meter
distance from the nearest existing Meralco facilities. In order to expedite the electrical connections,
certain employees of the company, including respondent Signo, made it appear in the application that the
sari-sari store at the corner of Marcos Highway, an entrance to the subdivision, is applicant de Lara's
establishment, which, in reality is not owned by the latter.
As a result of this scheme, the electrical connections to de Lara's residence were installed and
made possible. However, due to the fault of the Power Sales Division of Petitioner Company, Fernando
de Lara was not billed for more than a year. In an investigation conducted by the company, respondent
Signo was found responsible for the said irregularities in the installation. Thus, the services of the latter
were terminated on May 18, 1983. Notwithstanding that the private respondent has been employed by the
petitioner company since 1963. Signo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, and separation
pay.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent without
back wages. Both parties appealed to the Commission and were dismissed to reinstate by the
Commission for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent Signo should be dismissed from petitioner company on grounds of
serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence?

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 10

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

HELD:
No. There is no question that herein respondent Signo is guilty of breach of trust and violation of
company rules, the penalty for which ranges from reprimand to dismissal depending on the gravity of the
offense. However, as earlier stated, the respondent Commission and the Labor Arbiter found that
dismissal should not be meted to respondent Signo considering his twenty (20) years of service in the
employ of petitioner, without any previous derogatory record, in addition to the fact that petitioner
company had awarded him in the past, two (2) commendations for honesty. If ever the petitioner suffered
losses resulting from the unlisted electric consumption of de Lara, this was found to be the fault of
petitioner's Power Sales Division.
This Court has held time and again, in a number of decisions, that notwithstanding the existence
of a valid cause for dismissal, such as breach of trust by an employee, nevertheless, dismissal should not
be imposed, as it is too severe a penalty if the latter has been employed for a considerable length of time
in the service of his employer.
Further, in carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its implementing
regulations, the workingman's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. This kind of
interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided
for in Article 4 of the New Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be
resolved in favor of labor" (Abella v. NLRC, G.R. No. 71812, July 30,1987,152 SCRA 140).
In view of the foregoing, reinstatement of respondent Signo is proper in the instant case, but
without the award of backwages, considering the good faith of the employer in dismissing the respondent.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 11

1986. Dorado Respondents: The Honorable Secretary of Labor and the Regional Director of Labor. for underpayment of their salaries and ECOLAS. In a petition for certiorari. J. the employees are given food. No. a Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over labor standards cases. O. and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims. Region 10. No. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 12 . petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the Regional Director and the allembracing applicability of the award involving salary differentials and ECOLAS. cost of living allowance and other monetary and welfare benefits. which transferred labor standards cases from the arbitration system to the enforcement system. The answer is in the affirmative the Regional Directos has a jurisdiction in this labor standard case.58.O. No. 850. and those who were no longer in the service of the hospital at the time the complaint was filed. but the amount of which is deducted from their respective salaries. and regulations relating to wages. 888. safety. to all the petitioner’s employees. Under the present rules. On May 3. 111. but also those who are not signatories to the complaint.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Aguirre. FACTS: Petitioner is a semi-governmental hospital in Cagayan De Oro and Employing forty-one (41) employees. Whether or not the Regional Director erred in extending the award to all hospital employess? HELD: 1. “Labor standards refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws. hours of work. Aside from salary and living allowances. rules. provided there still exists an employer-employee relationship. 78909 Date: June 30. This is Labor Standard case. and health standards (Section 7. as amended by E. 1975. the Regional Director directed two of his labor standard and welfare officers to investigate and ascertain the truth of the allegations in the complaint. and 2. Regional Directors already had enforcement powers over money claims. No. including occupational. 1984 Petitioner: Maternity Children’s Hospital. ISSUES: 1. issued on December 16. ten (10) employees filed a complaint with the Regional Director of Labor and Employment. effective under P. Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Office. Consequently.D. Rule I. and is governed by Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code . The Secretary of Labor likewise affirmed the Decision and dismissed the Motion for Reconsideration of the petitioner.R. and the findings of the regional office is not contested by the employer concerned. 1986. the Regional Director issued an order dated August 4. Region X Ponente: Medialdea. Nolaida 2011-0087 MATERNITY CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL VS SECRETARY OF LABOR (Labor Law defined) G. We believed…that even in the absence of E. represented by Antera L. dated September 16. 1987)”. directing payment of ₱ 723. Based on the report and recommendation. in that it covers not only the hospitals employees who signed the complaints. Whether or not the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the case. 111.

The Regional Director correctly applied the award with respect to those employees who signed the complaint. and exercisable over establishments. Article 129 of the Labor Code in aid of the enforcement power of the Regional Director is not applicable where the employee seeking to be paid is separated from service. However. as well as those who did not sign the complaint.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION 2. and/ or compliance by such firm/establishment with the labor standards regulations. but were still connected with the hospital at the time the complaint was filed. not over individual members/employees. The justification for the award to this group of employees who were not signatories to the complaint is that the visitorial and enforcement powers given to the Secretatry of Labor labor is relevant to. His claim is purely money claim that has to be subject of arbitration proceedings and therefore within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. because what is sought to be achieved by its exercise is the observance of. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 13 . there is no legal justification for the award in favor of those employees who were no longer connected with the hospital t the time the complaint was filed.

Joyce V. 155421 Date: July. Upon the reply of the Bank Chairman. IV of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).. because it was designed primarily to force him to resign. petitioner filed a Complaint before Arbitration Branch No. and its Tayabas branch manager. Moreover.R. Cada. After the NLRC denied his Motion for Reconsideration.for illegal dismissal. FACTS: On April 25. petitioner brought before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari assailing the foregoing Resolution. this resolution does not preclude the transfer of assignment of bank officers and employees from the branch office to the head office and vice-versa. issued Board Resolution Nos. “that in line with the policy of the bank to familiarize bank employees with the various phases of bank operations and further strengthen the existing internal control system[. 1999. No. The Complaint -. this Petition. ISSUE:  Whether petitioner was constructively dismissed from his employment? ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 14 . the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Lucban. Zeta. 95-52 the following branch employees. Mendoza are reshuffled to their new assignments without changes in their compensation and other benefits. Nolaida 2011-0087 MENDOZA VS RURAL BANK OF LUCBAN G. the respondent Bank appealed and the NLRC reversed the Decision.was filed against the Rural Bank of Lucban and/or its president. The Court of appeals Find that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the NLRC. Daya. Mendoza and Chona R.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Aguirre. Inc. it informed it informed that it was never in their intention to downgrade the position of the petitioner in the bank considering that his due compensation as bank appraiser is maintained and no future reduction was intended. Daya. 99-52 and 99-53. while his table had been placed near the toilet and eventually removed. No. Alejo B. Briccio V. Pursuant to Board Res. He adds that the reshuffling of employees was done in bad faith. The Labor Arbiter rendered the decision in favor the petitioner. Petitioner filed a leave of absence for 10 days due to ailment and then another 20 days leave of absence. Clodualdo Zagala. J. separation pay and damages -. because he had been demoted from appraiser to clerk and not given any work to do. Petitioner argues that he was compelled to file an action for constructive dismissal. While on his second leave of absence. Hence.] all officers and employees are subject to reshuffle of assignments. Petitioner Elmer Mendoza in an antedated letter expressed his opinion on the reshuffled to the management. Elmer M. 7.”. Mendoza Respondent: Rural Bank of Lucban Ponente: Panganiban. underpayment. 2004 Petitioner: Elmer M.

made in bad faith.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION HELD: No. Constructive dismissal is defined as an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment is rendered impossible. The law protects both the welfare of employees and the prerogatives of management. or any diminution of his salary. provided they do not violate the law.for the purpose of advancing business interests. privileges and other benefits. In the case at bar. 1999 letter of Bank President Daya to Branch Manager Cada. The right of employees to security of tenure does not give them vested rights to their positions to the extent of depriving management of its prerogative to change their assignments or to transfer them. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 15 . insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. management has the prerogative to transfer or assign employees from one office or area of operation to another -. 1999 letter of Daya to petitioner. unreasonable or unlikely. This fact is clear in respondent's Board Resolutions.provided there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary. This privilege is inherent in the right of employers to control and manage their enterprise effectively. not of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees. collective bargaining agreements. and general principles of fair play and justice. or effected as a form of punishment or demotion without sufficient cause. the reshuffling of its employees was done in good faith and cannot be made the basis of a finding of constructive dismissal. The transfer of personnel from one area of operation to another is inherently a managerial prerogative that shall be upheld if exercised in good faith -. and the action is not motivated by discrimination. when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay. and other privileges. and the May 10. Petitioner was not singled out. other employees were also reassigned without their express consent. Courts will not interfere with business judgments of employers. There appears no justification for denying an employer the right to transfer employees to expand their competence and maximize their full potential for the advancement of the establishment. benefits. the April 30. Neither was there any demotion in the rank of petitioner. or when a clear discrimination. In the pursuit of its legitimate business interest. The petition has no merit.

that the provisions of section 13. unconstitutional. and to pat the cost in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 3017 upon which the complaint was based was illegal. ISSUE:  Whether or not the provisions of sections 13 and 15 of Act No. 12.00 to which she was entitled as her regular wages corresponding to 30 days before and 30 days after the delivery and confinement pursuant to Sec. 1916. 1924 Plaintiff. which took place on August 12. are unconstitutional and void. J. alleging that the facts therein contained did not constitute an offense. Nolaida 2011-0087 PEOPLE VS POMAR (Police Power as the basis of Labor Laws) G. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 16 . a tobacco factory pertaining to the La Compania General de Tobaos de Filipinas. An employee by the name of Macaria Fajardo was granted a vacation leave by the defendant which began on July 16. 15 of said Act. and void. 15 of Act.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Aguirre. p. under the facts and the law. The defendant was found guilty of the allege offense described in the complaint and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₱ 50. 238. No. 1923. 3071. the sentence of the lower court is hereby revoked. with costs de oficio. We are fully persuaded. by the reason of her pregnancy. No. L-22008 Date: November 3. The defendant demurred. 13 of Act No. 3071 are a reasonable and lawful exercise of the police power of the state? HELD: Yes. of Act No. in that they violate and are contrary to the provisions of the first paragraph of section 3 of the Act of Congress of the United States of August 29.00 or to suffer a subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. and the defendant is hereby discharged from the custody of the law. Said manager failed and refused to ar Fajardo the sum of ₱ 80. the complaint is hereby dismissed.) Therefore.R.appellee: The People of the Philippine Islands Defendant-appellant: Julio Pomar Ponente: Johnson. 3071 of the Philippine Legislature. FACTS: The defendant is the manager and person in charge of La Flor de la Isabel. whereupon the defendant answered and admitted at the trial all the allegations contained in the complaint. The demurrer was overruled. he contended that the provisions of Sec. 1923 Fajardo filed a complaint against the defendant. (Vol. Public Laws.

United States. 208 U. and require the shopkeeper. though the weakness of it may not be so plain. S. is not absolute. the parties have an equal right to obtain from each other the best terms they can as the result of private bargaining.. or the work the employee engages to do. To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services rendered. is not the value of the service rendered. and is no longer open to question. the baker. . . as already pointed out. and these arise outside of the employment. 208 U. if he sell to the individual at all. of course. or crippling losses.. It has been said that the particular statute before us is required in the interest of social justice for whose end freedom of contract may lawfully be subjected to restraint. with changing needs and circumstances. The argument in support of that now being considered is equally fallacious. he is morally entitled to obtain the worth of his money. but the extraneous circumstances that the employee needs to get a prescribed sum of money to insure her subsistence. generously leaving him. S. That the right to contract about one's affairs is a part of the liberty of the individual protected by this clause is settled by the decision of this court. That liberty must frequently yield to the common good. and as great in one occupation as in another. The fallacy of any argument in support of the validity of such a statute would be quickly exposed. If one goes to the butcher. Louisiana. or the contract. or grocer to buy food. 591.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION RATIO DECIDENDI: The statute now under consideration is attacked upon the ground that it authorizes an unconstitutional interference with the freedom of contract including within the guarantees of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. 412. the privilege of abandoning his business as an alternative for going on at a loss…The law takes no account of periods of distress and business depression. It ignores the necessities of the employer by compelling him to pay not less than a certain sum. but he is not entitle to more. not only whether the employee is capable of earning it. The failure of this state which. . and the shopkeeper.) x x x x x x x x x The law takes account of the necessities of only one party to the contract. even in innocent matters. it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person. puts upon it the stamp of invalidity is that it exacts from the employer an arbitrary payment for a purpose and upon a basis having no casual connection with his business. may be made to move. The necessities of the employee are alone considered. . ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 17 . perhaps more than any other. he is not justified in demanding more simply because he needs more. for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility. but irrespective of the ability of his business to sustain the burden. 161. are the same when there is no employment. 165 U. 578. belongs to society as a whole. health and morals. which may leave the employer himself without adequate means of livelihood. The declared basis. In principle. In making such contracts. S. arbitrarily shifts to his shoulders a burden which. to furnish that quantity at not more than a fixed maximum. . . (Allgeyer vs. Should a statute undertake to vest in a commission power to determine the quantity of food necessary for individual support. Oregon. if it belongs to anybody. generally speaking. within limits not well defined. having dealt fairly and honestly in that transaction. The liberty of the individual to do as he pleases. and therefore. Adair vs. it would undoubtedly fall before the constitutional test. 421. If what he gets is worth what he pays. Muller vs. and the line beyond which the power of interference may not be pressed is neither definite nor unalterable.. is not concerned in any peculiar sense with the question of his customer's necessities. there can be no difference between the case of selling labor and the case of selling goods. Within this liberty are contracts of employment of labor. in effect.

will show that its language refers only to the employer who. The accused interposed a demurrer on the ground that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute any offense. in spite of her repeated demands. Whether or not the last part of section 1 of Act No. ISSUE: 3. J. declaring unconstitutional the last part of section 1 of Act No. FACTS: The defendant was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila by the assistant city fiscal with a violation of Act No.L-45748 Date: April 5. 2549 as amended by Act. the laws penalizing it are unconstitutional. A close perusal of the last part of section 1 of Act No. No. In both cases the deceit or fraud is the essential element constituting the offense. In this appeal the Solicitor-General contends that the court erred in declaring Act No. as amended by Acts Nos. In either case the offender cannot certainly invoke the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. without justification and to the prejudice of the laborer or employee.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Aguirre. 1939 Plaintiff-appellant: The People of the Philippines Defendant-appellee: Franco Vera Reyes Ponente: Imperial. which was long due and payable. with costs de oficio. 3958. and that even if they did. Nolaida 2011-0087 PEOPLE VS VERA REYES G. in his capacity as president and general manager of the Consolidated Mines. the court sustained the demurrer. After the hearing. being able to make payment. and in dismissing the cause. 3958 unconstitutional. for the reason that it violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. 1936. the accused. and the second is estafa punished by the Revised Penal Code. The first case is a violation of Act No. by refusing to pay his just debt. and dismissed the case. 3958. 3085 and 3958 The information alleged that from September 9 to October 28. 3958 is constitutional and valid? HELD: It is constitutional and valid. and for the some time after. at an agreed salary of P35 a month willfully and illegally refused to pay the salary of said stenographer corresponding to the above-mentioned period of time. 3958. 2549 as last amended by Act No.R. shall abstain or refuse to do so. An employer so circumstanced is not unlike a person who defrauds another. 2549. The fiscal appealed from said order. 2549. which considers as an offense the facts alleged in the information. as amended by section 1 of Act No. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 18 . having engaged the services of Severa Velasco de Vera as stenographer.

is valid. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 19 . morals. 904. being able to do so. J.) In the exercise of this power the Legislature has ample authority to approve the disputed portion of Act No. p. within constitutional limits. and we reverse the appealed order with instructions to the lower court to proceed with the trial of the criminal case until it is terminated. in the majority of cases. safety. as last amended by section 1 of Act No. without special pronouncement as to costs in this instance. Undoubtedly. 2549. and general welfare of society. 3958. one of the purposes of the law is to suppress possible abuses on the part of employers who hire laborers or employees without paying them the salaries agreed upon for their services. Without this law. 3958 which punishes the employer who. the laborers and employees who earn meager salaries would be compelled to institute civil actions which. We hold that the last part of section 1 of Act No. thus causing them financial difficulties. (12 C. health.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Police power is the power inherent in a government to enact laws. to promote the order. refuses to pay the salaries of his laborers or employers in the specified periods of time.. would cost them more than that which they would receive in case of a decision in their favor.

1988. Respondents: Hon. of the Department of Labor and Employment. Qatar. 1. Achacoso. On May 25. Inc." Specifically. In submitting the validity of the challenged "guidelines." pursuant to the respondent Department of Labor's rule-making authority vested in it by the Labor Code. filed a Comment informing the Court that on March 8. Series of 1988. Inc. 1 is a valid implementation of the Labor Code. United States. Italy." 1 challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. FACTS: The petitioner. and Tomas D. Norway. It has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. for overseas placement." and that it is violative of the right to travel. on behalf of the respondents Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 20 . and not executive. 1988 Petitioner: Philippine Association of Service Exporters. as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Ponente: Sarmiento. 81958 Date: June 30.R. in the character of "Guidelines Governing The Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers. No. in particular. its basic policy to "afford protection to labor." the Solicitor General invokes the police power of the Philippine State. 1 in the police power measure is valid under the Constitution? HELD: The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. in character. Drilon as Secretary of Labor and Employment." Department Order No. It is held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. police power being legislative. Jordan. Franklin M. Philippine Association of Service Exporters. Canada. Hongkong. ISSUE:  Whether or not Department Order No. Austria. a firm "engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers. the respondent Labor Secretary lifted the deployment ban in the states of Iraq. for short).. Nolaida 2011-0087 PHILIPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS INC VS DRILON G. the Solicitor General. male and female. (PASEI." that it "does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills. the measure is assailed for "discrimination against males or females. and Switzerland. J.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Aguirre. 1988. The disputed Order is a valid qualification thereto.

personally and economically. What concerns the Constitution more paramountly is that such an employment be above all. It is bad enough that the country has to send its sons and daughters to strange lands because it cannot satisfy their employment needs at home. the Government has evidence. just. It is not contested that it has in fact removed the prohibition with respect to certain countries as manifested by the Solicitor General. while away from home. In this case. it has precisely ordered an indefinite ban on deployment. Under these circumstances. an evidence the petitioner cannot seriously dispute. of the lack or inadequacy of such protection. The Government has convinced the Court in this case that this is its intent. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 21 . We do not find the impugned Order to be tainted with a grave abuse of discretion to warrant the extraordinary relief prayed for. decent. the Government is duty-bound to insure that our toiling expatriates have adequate protection. and as part of its duty. The Court finds furthermore that the Government has not indiscriminately made use of its authority.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION "Protection to labor" does not signify the promotion of employment alone. and humane.

cancellation. in August.. for a period of two years or until June 30. Fort Santiago. on September 21. NPDC filed in the Regional Trial Court in Manila. Court of Appeals and the national Parks Development Supervisory Association & their Members Ponente: Griño-Aquino. 1987. 120. Paco Park. Amado Lansang. On March 20. Laguna. have no right to strike although they may form a union. Inc. By virtue of Executive Order No. the petitioner's complaint in Civil Case No. The NPDC Chairman. Luneta and other national parks. 87676 Date: December 20. dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. all appointments and other personnel actions shall be submitted through the Civil Service Commission Commission. a complaint against the union to declare the strike illegal and to restrain it on the ground that the strikers. FACTS: The NPDC was originally created in 1963 under Executive Order No. Nolaida 2011-0087 REPUBLIC VS COURT OF APPEALS G. and Pook ni Mariang Makiling at Los Banos. 30. the NPDC was attached to the Ministry (later Department) of Tourism and provided with a separate budget subject to audit by the Commission on Audit and pursuant to Executive Order No. On March 21. 967) and NPDC and NPDCSA (TUPAS Chapter No. hence. was organized and it affiliated with the Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) under Certificate No. 68. Branch III. Jr. being government employees. 1967. consisting of employees holding supervisory positions in the different areas of the parks. known as "The National Parks Development Committee. the Rizal Park Supervisory Employees Association. 1988. and later renamed as the National Parks Development Committee under Executive Order No. 1989 Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines. 8844048 praying for a declaration of illegality of the strike of the private respondents and to restrain the same. alleging unfair labor practices by NPDC. The Regional Trial Court of Manila. represented by the National Parks Development Committee Respndents: The Hon. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner's petition for certiorari. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Aguirre.R. Branch III. these unions staged a stake at the Rizal Park. 1206). it was registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a non-stock and nonprofit corporation. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 22 . 1989. 120. or revocation of the Certificate of Registration of NPDC. Meanwhile. informed SEC that his Office had no objection to the suspension. as the Executive Committee for the development of the Quezon Memorial." However. J. 1206. the NPDC was ordered by the SEC to show cause why its Certificate of Registration should not be suspended for. Two collective bargaining agreements were entered into between NPDC and NPDCEA (TUPAS local Chapter No. 1988. this petition for review.

In case of a labor dispute between the employees and the government.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ISSUE:  Whether the petitioner. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 23 . the Court of Appeals and the lower court erred in holding that the labor dispute between the NPDC and the members of the NPDSA is cognizable by the Department of Labor and Employment. Its employees are civil service employees (Sec. The private respondents' complaint should be filed in the Public Sector Labor-Management Council as provided in Section 15 of Executive Order No. 14. 180 dated June 1. its employees are covered by civil service rules and regulations (Sec. there is as yet no law permitting them to strike. is a government agency. National Parks Development Committee (NPDC). HELD: NPDC is a government agency. 180. 1987 Constitution). or a private corporation. The petition for review is granted. shall hear the dispute. 1987 provides that the Public Sector Labor. for on this issue depends the right of its employees to strike. 180). Clearly.Management Council. While NPDC employees are allowed under the 1987 Constitution to organize and join unions of their choice. Section 15 of Executive Order No. not the Department of Labor and Employment. Article IX. Executive Order No. 2.

FACTS: Petitioner Manuel Sosito was employed in 1964 by the private respondent. 1976. who would tender their resignations not later than July 31. during the period of indefinite leave. he was still in its employ. However. Being on indefinite leave. J. and was in charge of logging importation. It is equally clear that the petitioner was not eligible for the promised gratuity as he was not actually working with the company as of the said date. 1987 Petitioner: Manuel Sosito Respondent: Aguinaldo Development Corporation Ponente: Cruz. through its president. this decision was reversed and it was held that the petitioner was not covered by the retrenchment program. which was in force at the time. announced a retrenchment program and offered separation pay to employees in the active service as of June 30. he was not in the active service of the private respondent although. a logging company. in recognition of their loyalty and to tide them over their own financial difficulties. if one were to be technical. representing his salary for six and a half months.R. It is clear from the memorandum that the offer of separation pay was extended only to those who were in the active service of the company as of June 30.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Aguirre. 1976.50. Even so. he was not entitled to receive any salary or to enjoy any other benefits available to those in the active service. We hold that the petitioner is not one of them. On July 20. No. The Court feels that such compassionate measure deserves commendation and support but at the same time rules that it should be available only to those who are qualified therefore. We note that under the law then in force the private respondent could have validly reduced its work force because of its financial reverses without the obligation to grant separation pay. 1976. ISSUE:  Whether or not the etitioner is entitled to separation pay under the retrenchment program? HELD: No. with a monthly salary of P675. of the Labor Code. 1976. This was permitted under the original Article 272(a). "to avail himself of the gratuity benefits" promised. when he went on indefinite leave with the consent of the company on January 16. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 24 . his resignation was not acted upon and he was never given the separation pay he expected. On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission.00. 1976.387. Nolaida 2011-0087 SOSITO VS AGUINALDO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G. Hence this petition. The company voluntarily offered gratuities to those who would agree to be phased out pursuant to the terms and conditions of its retrenchment program. The petitioner complained to the Department of Labor. the private respondent. where he was sustained by the labor arbiter. The company was ordered to pay Sosito the sum of ₱ 4. 1976. The petitioner decided to accept this offer and so submitted his resignation on July 29. L-48926 Date: December 14.

Management also has its own rights which. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 25 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class. as such. however. Out of its concern for those with less privileges in life. it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play. Such favoritism. has not blinded us to the rule that justice is in every case for the deserving. to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine. this Court has inclined more often than not toward the worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer.

000 in favor of Macondray and Company. The members of the petitioner union or of the shipping agencies are not ordinary permanent and continuous employees. Inc. to respond for any negligence. Macondray and Company. was charged with unfair labor practice for having dismissed and refused to employ 38 members of the petitioner herein. At the hearing or conference before the court on 16 March 1956. employed by certain shipping agencies in the City of Manila and respondent Macondray and Company. Inc.. No. Petitioner union and its members declared a strike against 19 shipping firms in the City of Manila. Aragon 2011-0238 ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION VS LANTING G. The manager of respondent Macondray and Company.R. Arsenio Martinez. Inc. Inc. that they furnish such a bond. the strikers. refused to employ watchmen from the said agency. Inc. expressed their desire to return back to work and maintain the status quo. but merely casual guards who are employed only when there is a ship to be guarded and during the stay of the ship in the port of Manila. Held: The refusal of the respondent to employ guards affiliated with a security or watchmen agency that does not furnish a bond can not constitute an unfair labor practice. without reference to the unions to which the different guards may have pertained. Ponente: J. Judges Juan Lanting. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 26 . L-141120 February 29. Inc. of the Court of Industrial Relations and Macondray and Co. to which most of the members of the petitioner union belonged. 1960 Petitioner: Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO) Respondent: The Hon. Because of the failure of the Republic Ships Security Agency to furnish a bond. Inc. through counsel. Emiliano Tabigne. Ruled in favor of the respondents. the Republic Ships Security Agency. Labrador Facts: The Republic Ships Security Agency is one of three agencies. respondent secured security guards through the three watchmen agencies above mentioned. Tagle Ship Watchmen Agency and the City Watchmen and Security Agency. Such refusal is merely the exercise of respondent's legitimate right to protect its own interests.. expressed willingness to employ the strikers belonging to the petitioner union under the condition that the agency to which they belong file a bond in the sum of P5. misfeasance or malfeasance of any of the watchmen of petitioner. On 15 November 1956. However. together with K. Respondent contends that they did not demand a bond from the members of the petitioner union but from the Republic Ships Security Agency. that it has not discriminated against members of the petitioner union. Thirty-eight affiliates of the Republic Ships Security Agency belong to the petitioner labor union. Respondent never had any contract or agreement with the petitioner union. Issue: Validity of the bond imposed by respondent Macondray and Company. Inc. Macondray and Company.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. failed to comply with the demands of Macondray and Company. in guarding ships or vessels arriving at the port of Manila and discharging cargo on its piers. Attempts were made by the Court of Industrial Relations to settle the strike.

L . expressed the view and declared that the section and interpretative bulletin are null and void. Presidential Executive Assistant. 9. guided by Policy Instructions No. the Acting Secretary. On the principal issue of holiday pay. The next day. Issue: Whether or not the monthly pay of the covered employees already includes what Article 94 of the Labor Code requires as regular holiday pay benefit in the amount of his regular daily wage. Rule IV. against private respondent bank (Comtrust) for non-payment of the holiday pay benefits provided for under Article 95 (now Article 94) of the Labor Code. In Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union (IBAAEU) vs. the parties opted to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration. DE LA FUENTE Facts: Petitioner Commercial Bank and Trust Company Employees' Union (CBTC) lodged a complaint with the Department of Labor. public respondent predicated his ruling on Section 2. On 30 June 1977. Held: In excluding the union members the benefits of the holiday pay law. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 27 . This appeal was dismissed on 16 August 1976. On 22 April 1976. the Acting Secretary of Labor reversed the NLRC decision. CLAVE. Said bank interposed an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The questioned Section 2. 9. 9.R. CLAVE G. An administrative interpretation which diminishes the benefits of labor more than what the statute delimits or withholds is obviously ultra vires. While the additional exclusion is only in the form of a presumption that all monthly paid employees have already been paid holiday pay. and the award of the Arbitrator reinstated. among other things. a policy regarding the implementation of the ten (10) paid legal holidays. 9 add another excluded group. the Department of Labor released Policy Instructions No. 9. this Court's Second Division. 1986 Petitioner: CBTC EMPLOYEES UNION Respondent: THE HONORABLE JACOBO C. speaking through former Justice Makasiar.49582 January 7. contending that the Arbitrator demonstrated gross incompetence and/or grave abuse of discretion when he failed to apply Policy Instructions No. namely. Presidential Executive Assistant and the Acting Secretary of labor are set aside. it constitutes a taking away or a deprivation which must be in the law if it is to be valid.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. the Arbitrator handed down an award on the dispute in favor of petitioner union. No. 'employees who are uniformly paid by the month'. Book III of the Integrated Rules and the Secretary's Policy Instruction No. Rule IV. Failing to arrive at an amicable settlement at conciliation level. Inciong. having been promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor in excess of his rule-making authority. Book III of the Rules to implement Article 94 of the Labor Code promulgated by the then Secretary of Labor and Policy Instructions No. Aragon 2011-0238 CBTC EMPLOYEES UNION VS. and COMMERCIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES Ponente: J. 23 April 1976. Private respondent then appealed to the Secretary of Labor. Ruled in favor of the petitioners. applied the same retrospectively.

BORROMEO G.10 incurred by the Bank. Hence. Without authority from the Executive Committee or Board of Directors of the bank. The CA. however.08 from the respondent’s total separation benefits or pay. Aragon 2011-0238 CHINA BANKING CORPORATION VS.79 representing 90% of the total loss of P1. set aside the NLRC decision and ordered that the records of the case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for further hearings on the factual issues involved. Thus. 2004 Petitioner: China Banking Corporation Respondent: Mariano M. mid-year bonus.375 in favour of Joel Maniwan. No. alleging that respondent was denied his right to due process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the bank. but the bank maintained its position to withhold the sum of P836. which are not sufficiently funded by cash.263. this petition. Respondent appealed to the NLRC but it affirmed in toto the findings of the Labor Arbiter. 156515 October 19. profit share and damages against the bank.441. The respondent accepted full responsibility for committing an error in judgment and abuse of discretion. he approved several DAUD/BP (Drawn Against Uncollected Deposits/Bills Purhcased) accommodations amounting to P2.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 28 . vehemently denied benefitting therefrom.637.” The respondent. The respondent made a demand on the bank for the payment of his separation pay and other benefits. in view of his resignation and considering the years of service in the Bank. Such checks.637. Borromeo Ponente: J. Facts: Respondent Mariano Borromeo was Assistant Vice-President of the Branch Banking Group of China Banking Corporation for the Mindanao Area. Mariano filed with the NLRC a complaint for payment of separation pay.736.08. however. Mariano resigned from the Bank and apologized “for all the trouble I have caused because of the Maniwan case. are generally not honoured by banks. the respondent was directed to restitute the amount of P1. The said amount would be released upon recovery of the sums demanded from Maniwan in a civil case filed against him by the bank with the RTC in Cagayan de Oro City. A memorandum was issued to the Mariano seeking clarification relative to the matter. the management earmarked only P836. However.675.507. Callejo. Issue: Whether or not the bank has the prerogative or right to impose on the respondent what it considered the appropriate penalty under the circumstances pursuant to its company rules and regulations.R. The bank filed a motion for reconsidered but denied the same. This came to the knowledge of the bank authorities. Sr. His acts having constituted violation of the Bank’s Code of Ethics.

and like all other business enterprises. its prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to company rules and regulations must be respected. It is expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees. It was certainly within the bank’s prerogative to impose on the respondent what it considered the appropriate penalty under the circumstances pursuant to its company rules and regulations. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 29 . The decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. Significantly. authorized neither oppression nor self-destruction of an employer company which itself is possessed of rights that must be entitled to recognition and respect. “the separation benefits due the complainant were merely withheld. As a corollary. The petitioner’s bank business is essentially imbued with public interest and owes great fidelity to the public it deals with. The Resolution of the NLRC is reinstated. The petition is granted. the respondent is not wholly deprived of his separation benefits. in protecting the rights of labor.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: The bank was left with no other course but to impose the ancillary penalty of restitution. The law. the earmarked portion of his benefits will be released without delay. As the Labor Arbiter stressed in his decision. Even the petitioner bank itself gives “the assurance that as soon as the bank has satisfied a judgment in the civil case.

"Gregorio Araneta Employees' Union". The Board required a reduction in the volume of business necessitating likewise a reduction of personnel and caused the laying off of 17 employees. The volume of business was considerably reduced. The reorganization of the Agricultural Division was adopted by unanimous resolution of the Board of Directors as a consequence of the retrenchment policy.000. No.. The total investment in that Division in 1953 was about P3. it was never directed against the union or any of its members for union or labor activities. The selection of those to be laid off was made by a technical man and approved by the Board.R. the Board of Directors felt that it was necessary either to invite fresh capital from outside or to adopt a retrenchment policy. was organized and. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 30 . 1955 Petitioner: Gregorio Araneta Employees' Union.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. This was adopted even before the petitioner. Issue: Whether or not the retrenchment policy adopted by the company is an unfair labor practice. When Heacock and Company refused the invitation to invest in the enterprise.. To reduce this overcapitalization. Respondent: Arsenio C. without pronouncement as to costs.000. etc. These employees were given one month separation pay. consequently.000. et al. Thus. Held: No. Aragon 2011-0238 GREGORIO ARANETA EMPLOYEES VS. Inc. Ponente: J. was established in 1947 with a capital of P200. ROLDAN G. the laying off of the 17 employees was due to the retrenchment policy which the Company had to adopt in order to reduce the overcapitalization and minimize expenses. et al. The petition is denied. Jugo Facts: The Agricultural Division of the Gregorio Araneta. except Nicolas Gonzalez who refused to receive it. the Board took the alternative of retrenchment. L-6846 July 20. Roldan.

petitioner claimed that the same was an honest omission brought about by his concentration on other aspects of his job. as well as for issuing the written statement aforementioned. to moral and exemplary damages. Cityland issued a written reprimand to petitioner for his failure to submit cold call reports for some time. 2. requires all its marketing specialists to make cold calls. Aragon 2011-0238 LAGATIC VS.1993.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. Romero Facts: Petitioner Lagatic was employed by Cityland. Cityland requires the submission of daily progress reports on the same. with a similar warning. to unpaid overtime. first as a probationary sales agent. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 31 . He was verbally reminded to submit the same and was even given up a due date to do so. 1998 Petitioner: Romeo Lagatic Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission. referrals. Jesus Go. Cityland served a notice of dismissal upon him on February 26. illegal deduction. petitioner again failed to submit cold call reports. Grace Liuson. petitioner wrote a note. The labor arbiter dismissed the petition for lack of merit. In a reply. believing that the same is an effective and cost-efficient method of finding clients. Instead of complying with said directive. Petitioner was required to explain his inaction. with a warning that further non-compliance would result in his termination from the company. This notwithstanding. hence the present recourse. 121004 January 28. as well as attorney's fees and costs. Issue: 1.Cityland found said excuse inadequate and suspended him for three days.Finding petitioner guilty of gross insubordination. Aggrieved by such dismissal. with the corresponding duties of accepting call-ins. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to amounts illegally deducted from his commissions. in order to assess cold calls made by the sales staff. Cityland. and making client calls and cold calls. the same was affirmed by the NLRC. overtime and rest day pay. "TO HELL WITH COLD CALLS! WHO CARES?" and exhibited the same to his co-employees. rest day and holiday premiums.R. as well as to determine the results thereof. damages and attorney's fees. Cityland Development Corporation. He sent a letter-reply alleging that his failure to submit cold callreports should trot be deemed as gross insubordination. Stephen Roxas. He denied any knowledge of the damaging statement allegedly made by him. and Andrew Liuson Ponente: J. He was tasked with soliciting sales for thecompany. No. Whether or not NLRC gravely abused its discretion in not finding that petitioner was illegally dismissed. petitioner again failed to submit cold call reports. NLRC G. and later on as a marketingspecialist. Likewise. Notwithstanding the aforesaid suspension and warning. Petitioner received a memorandum requiring him to explain why Cityland should not make good its previous warning for his failure to submit cold call reports. On appeal. petitioner filed a complaint against Cityland for illegal dismissal. Cold calls refer to the practice of prospecting for clients through the telephone directory. underpayment.

an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company business. Based on the foregoing." Petitioner's continued infraction of company policy requiring cold callreports. "TO HELL WITH COLD CALLS! WHOCARES?" When required to explain. . . Willful disobedience requires the concurrence of at least two requisites:a. as well as attorney's fees. before an employee may avail of said benefit. two requisites must be met. must fail. the order violated must have been reasonable. lawful. however. he merely denied ally knowledge of the same. enter the service. petitioner made it worse for himself when he wrote the statement. on the other hand. "Corollarily. lack of regard for his employer's rules . special laws. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 32 . with knowledge of an established rule.submitted the affidavits of his co-employees attesting to his authorship of the same. Moreover. justifies his dismissal. Petitioner loses sight of the fact that "(e)xcept as provided for. and when employees.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: 1. Entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that said overtime work was actuallyperformed. . if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. according to his discretion and judgment. unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law. Also. namely:(1) the employee must be afforded due process. petitioner failed to show his entitlement to overtime and rest day pay due. and(2) the dismissal must be for a valid cause. all aspects of employment. we find petitioner guilty of willful disobedience. An employer cannot rationally be expected to retain the employment of a person whose . The Assailed Resolution is affirmed and the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. the rule becomes a part of the contract of employment. With the finding that petitioner's dismissal was for a just and valid cause. The rule.has so plainly and completely been bared. thus. the willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. as evidenced by the instances of non-submissionof aforesaid reports. the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional. is that denial. an employer is free to regulate. To constitute a valid dismissal from employment. and b. 2. Costs against the petitioner. his claims for moral and exemplary damages . are generally valid and binding on the parties and must be complied with. is negative and self-serving evidence which has no weight in law. Petitioner's only defense is denial. or limited by. It is also generally recognized that company policies and regulations. Cityland. . make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of their employees. to the lack of sufficient evidence as to the number of days and hours when he rendered overtime and rest day work." Employers may.

in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator. Romero Facts: From a submission agreement of the Luzon Development Bank (LDB) and the Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees (ALDBE) arose an arbitration case to resolve the following issue: whether or not the company has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision and the Memorandum of Agreement dated April1994. On May 24. Issue: Which court has the jurisdiction for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities Held: Section 9 of B. as amended. resolutions. G. Ester S. the provisions of this Act. provides that the Court of Appeals shall exercise: (B) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments. orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies. 1995. without LDB's Position Paper. 129. the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission. ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK. boards or commissions. on promotion. failed to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them to do so. Garcia in her capacity as VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR Ponente: J. on the other hand. 120319 October 6. Aragon 2011-0238 LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK VS. instrumentalities. ET AL. 1995 Petitioner: Luzon Development Bank Respondent: Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees and Atty. as amended by Republic Act No. Ester S. the parties agreed on the submission of their respective Position Papers on December 1-15. this petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same. 1995. 442. 7902. No. and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution.P. decisions. the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. As of May 23. 1995 no Position Paper had been filed by LDB. Hence.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. Atty. finding is hereby made that the Bank has not adhered to the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the Memorandum of Agreement on promotion. 1994. At a conference. Blg. Garcia. LDB.R. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 33 . including the Securities and Exchange Commission. received ALDBE's Position Paper on January 18. the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision disposing as follows: WHEREFORE.

the original purpose of Circular No. boards and commissions enumerated therein. 876. at any time within one (1) month after an award is made. modified or corrected. it is worth mentioning that under Section 22 of Republic Act No. In effect. Consequently. and consistent with. A party to the controversy may. apply to the court having jurisdiction for an order confirming the award and the court must grant such order unless the award is vacated. the Court resolved to REFER this case to the Court of Appeals.P. 9 since he is a quasi-judicial instrumentality as contemplated therein A fortiori. or in which the arbitration is held. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 34 . 129. the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities not expressly excepted from the coverage of Sec. therefore. also known as the Arbitration Law. 9 of B. or if none be specified.P. shall have jurisdiction. This would be in furtherance of. just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies. in a petition for certiorari from that award or decision. 1-95. 9 of B. 129 by either the Constitution or another statute. the Regional Trial Court for the province or city in which one of the parties resides or is doing business.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to a governmental power delegated to him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and he falls. ACCORDINGLY. within the contemplation of the term "instrumentality" in the aforequoted Sec. arbitration is deemed a special proceeding of which the court specified in the contract or submission. The fact that his functions and powers are provided for in the Labor Code does not place him within the exceptions to said Sec. In the same vein. this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. in line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No.

1975. 1977. Issue: Whether or not the employees of the National Housing Corporation. 1982. a GOCC without original charter. Petitioner then elevated the case to the NLRC which rendered a decision on December 28.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. Facts: Petitioner Benjamin C. "Every" means each one of a group. On May 14. JUCO G. 1985 Petitioner: National Labor Relations Commission and National Housing Corporation Respondent: Benjamin C. 1975. subdivision and instrumentality of the Government. GUTIERREZ. The inclusion of GOCC within the embrace of the civil service shows a deliberate effort at the framers to plug an earlier loophole which allowed GOCC to avoid the full consequences of the civil service system. Art XII-B of the Constitution specifically provides: "The Civil Service embraces every branch. Held: Sec. The questioned decision of the respondent National Labor Relations Commission is SET ASIDE. including every government owned and controlled corporation. This constitutional provision has been implemented by statute PD 807 is unequivocal that personnel of GOCC belong to the civil service and subject to civil service requirements. No. On March 25. 1977. Juco Ponente: J. Aragon 2011-0238 NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION VS. he was separated from the service for having been implicated in a crime of theft and/or malversation of public funds. 11. On September 17. agency. 1970 to May 14. petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the NHC with the Department of Labor. JR. L-64313 January 17. Juco was hired as a project engineer of respondent National Housing Corporation (NHC) from November 16. It does not cover cases involving private firms taken over by the government in foreclosure or similar proceedings. NHC in turn appealed to the Supreme Court. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 35 . without exception. is covered by the Labor Code or by laws and regulations governing the civil service. All offices and firms of the government are covered.R. The petition is GRANTED. This case refers to a GOCC. the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint on the ground that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the case because NHC is a government-owned corporation and jurisdiction over its employees is vested in the Civil Service Commision. The decision of the Labor Arbiter dismissing the case before it for lack of jurisdiction is REINSTATED. reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter remanded the case to the labor arbiter for further proceedings.

Juco. the civil service does not include GOCC which are organized as subsidiaries of GOCC under the general corporation law. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. that is to cases that arose before its promulgation of Jan 17. the terms and conditions of employment of its employees are governed by the Civil Service Law citing National Housing vs. Juco was based. including government owned or controlled corporation with original charter. NLRC ruled ordering her reinstatement. subdivisions. The holding in NHC v Juco should not be given retroactive effect.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. a GOCC without original charter. NASECO as a government corporation by virtue of its being a subsidiary of the NIDC. In the matter of coverage by the civil service of GOCC. L-69870 November 29. the 1987 Constitution starkly differs from the 1973 constitution where NHC vs. To do otherwise would be oppressive to Credo and other employees similarly situated because under the 1973 Constitution but prior to the ruling in NHC vs. NLRC G." Therefore by clear implication. Held: NO. National Bank which is in turn a GOCC. instrumentalities. 1985. NASECO argues that NLRC has no jurisdiction to order her reinstatement. PEREZ Respondent: THE HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION. among them NASECO. MANILA AND EUGENIA C. are governed by the Civil Service Law. 1988 Petitioner: NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION (NASECO) AND ARTURO L. Issue: Whether or not the employees of NASECO. It provides that the "civil service embraces all branches. CREDO Ponente: J. Juco.R. No. this court recognized the applicability of the Labor jurisdiction over disputes involving terms and conditions of employment in GOCC's. Aragon 2011-0238 NATIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION VS. which is wholly owned by the Phil. and agencies of the Government. She claims she was illegally dismissed. Padilla Facts: Eugenio Credo was an employee of the National Service Corporation. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 36 .

1939 Petitioner: Pampanga Bus Company.. Div. if ever intended by law upon grounds of public policy. 260. the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order. S. The right of the laborer to sell his labor to such person as he may choose is. The general right to make a contract in relation to one's business is an essential part of the liberty of the citizens protected by the due-process clause of the Constitution. the same as the right of an employer to purchase labor from any person whom it chooses. and shorter working hours for laborers.Y. with the proviso that. Inc. vs. 1939. Issue: Whether or not the right of the employer to select its employees was violated. Section of Commonwealth Act No. against its will. social and moral well-being of their members. in substance and in effect. 605. directing the petitioner herein.. this is oppression." (Mills vs.. 276): ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 37 . Indeed. we know of no provision of the law compelling such agreements. Aragon 2011-0238 PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY VS PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION G. to employ preferentially.S. Such a fundamental curtailment of freedom. This order. Moran Facts: On May 31. 62 Law. to promote the material.The Supreme Court hold that the Court of Industrial Relations has no authority to issue such compulsory order. 91 N. Inc. 229. fair wages. If the employee can compel the employer to give him work against the employer's will. compels the company.R. Inc. 46739 September 23. This provision in granting to labor unions merely the right of collective bargaining. No." The term "collective bargaining" denotes.) chanrobles virtual law library. if the union fails to provide employees possessing the necessary qualifications. the members of the union. The supreme mandates of the Constitution should not be loosely brushed aside. "If the employer can compel the employee to work against the latter's will.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. 213 confers upon labor organizations the right "to collective bargaining with employers for the purpose of seeking better working and living conditions. 99 App. 185. in common usage as well as in legal terminology. Ponente: J.. and. in its essence. this is servitude. in its service. to recruit from the respondent. in general.. ed. As held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hitchman Coal & Co. Held: Yes. impliedly recognizes the employer's liberty to enter or not into collective agreements with them. 189-192... Respondent: Pambusco Employees Union. new employees or laborers it may need to replace members of the union who may be dismissed from the service of the company. should be effected in a manner that is beyond all possibility of doubt. United States Printing Co. Mitchell (245 U. the company may employ any other persons it may desire. Pampanga Bus Company. negotiations looking toward a collective agreement. The employer and the employee have thus an equality of right guaranteed by the Constitution. Inc. Pambusco Employees' Union.

with costs against the respondent Pambusco Employees' Union. as in the former. as the working man is free to join the union. . and other employers to agree with them to employ no man who owes any allegiance or obligation to the union. . Inc. in any just sense. This court repeatedly has held that the employer is as free to make non-membership in a union a condition or employment. the order appealed from was reversed. entitles other men to remain independent of the union. and that this is a part of the constitutional rights of personal liberty and private property. unless it is voluntary on both sides. unless through some proper exercise of the paramount police power. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 38 . The same liberty which enables men to form unions. Whatever may be the advantages of "collective bargaining." it is not bargaining at all.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION . In the latter case. the parties are entitled to be protected by the law in the enjoyment of the benefits of any unlawful agreements they make. Thus considered. not to be taken away by legislation. and through the union to enter into agreements with employers willing to agree.

" challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. Specifically. There is no question that Order No. in the character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS. The consequence of the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right. Police power as been defined as the state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote general welfare.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. Franklin M. 81958 June 30. Philippine Association of Service Exporters. as the right to travel is subjects among other things." 2 that it "does not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills. police power being legislative. a firm 1 "engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers. 1 does not impair the right to travel. as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Ponente: J. the Filipino female domestics working abroad were in a class by themselves. No. for short). the measure is assailed for "discrimination against males or females. Achacoso. 1 is constitutional. and not executive. and Tomas D. in character." in this petition for certiorari and prohibition. Sarmiento Facts: The petitioner. Inc. Held: The court held that there has been valid classification. 1988 Petitioner: Philippine Association of Service Exporters. Aragon 2011-0238 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS VS. of the Department of Labor and Employment. Deployment ban of female domestic helper is a valid exercise of police power. It is well settled that equality before the law under the constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and women. No costs. because of the special risk to which their class was exposed. Department Order No." 3 and that it is violative of the right to travel. Respondent: Hon. DRILON G. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 39 . Series of 1988. Issue: Whether or not the Department Order No. 1. Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order No. male and female. It is held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power. Inc. Drilon as Secretary of Labor and Employment. to the requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by law. (PASEI. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power as the labor code vest the DOLE with rule making powers.1 applies only to female contract workers but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. The petition is DISMISSED. for overseas placement.R.

Temporarily taken back on certain conditions pending final determination of the controversy. etc. of course. aluminum sheets. filed a motion in the case.. these eleven workers were in the end ordered retained in the decision handed down by the court on February 19. On February 10. 1949 Petitioner: Philippine Sheet Metal Workers Union Respondent: Court of Industrial Relations. Reyes Facts: On March 1.The said order was issued of said court involving an industrial dispute between the respondent company (a corporation engaged in the manufacture of tin plates.. 1947." It appears.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. Issue: Whether or not the firing of the laborers due to their union activities is valid? Held: Yes. The petitioner contends that the order complained of was made with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in that it is contrary to the pronouncement made by the lower court in its decision in the main case where it disapproved of the dismissal of eleven workers "with whom the management is displeased due to their union activities. nine days before the decision came down. dismissal of union officers/members. Aragon 2011-0238 PHILIPPINE SHEET METAL WORKERS' UNION VS. that is. being for the recall of eleven workers who had been laid off. It should not be made a pretext for easing out laborers on account of their union activities.) and its laborers some of whom belong to the Philippine Sheet Metal Workers' Union (CLO) and some to the Liberal Labor Union. The petitioner tried to prove that the 11 laborers were laid off by the respondent company due to their union activities. But neither should it be denied when it is shows that they are not discharging their duties in a manner consistent with good discipline and the efficient operation of an industrial enterprise. The dispute was over certain demands made upon the company by the laborers. one of the demands. asking for authority to lay off at least 15 workers in its can department on the ground that the installation and operation of nine new labor-saving machines in said department had rendered the services of the said workers unnecessary. L-2028 April 28. and Liberal Labor Union Ponente: J. 1985. The right to reduce personnel should. not be abused. No. 1947. Philippine Can Co.R. however. and coercing employees to retract their membership with the union and restraining non-union members from joining the union. the respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) on ground of unfair labor practice consisting of alleged refusal to bargain. CIR G. which are different from those found by the court in connection with ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 40 . that the pronouncement was made upon a distinct set of facts.

or there is evidence of sufficient weight to convince the Court that their conduct is not satisfactory. but without costs against the petitioner for the reasons stated in its motion to litigate as pauper. and that very decision. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 41 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION the present incident. qualifies the order by saying that those laborers are to be retained only "until the occurrence of facts that may give rise to a just cause of their laying off or dismissal. therefore. denied. The petition for certiorari is. in ordering the reinstatement of the eleven laborers." After a careful review of the record. the court find that the Court of Industrial Relations has neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the order complained of.

he was transferred to the Claims Department and his salary was increased to P450. and/or Sergio Corpus Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission. Office Behavior and Other Rules and Regulations. allegedly. 80-87). he was made a regular employee. In 1980.00 a month plus cost of living allowance. having been appointed as clerk-typist. Being a permanent employee. Ruiz reinstated him to his position with back wages. In July. private respondent Rogelio R. No extension of period. herein private respondent Rogelio R. the instant petition. NLRC G. — Decision or orders of a labor Arbiter shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of notice thereof. 1985 (Ibid. Issue: Whether or not NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on a technicality. Coria was hired by herein petitioner Rizal Empire Insurance Group as a casual employee with a salary of P10. 1978. Petitioner filed an appeal with the National labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but. Hence. 1987 Petitioner: Rizal Empire Insurance Group.00 a month.00. Coria Ponente: J. Paras Facts: In August. 73140 May 29. without change in his positiondesignation. he was transferred to the Underwriting Department and his salary was increased to P580. Aragon 2011-0238 RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE GROUP VS. On January 1. — No motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be entertained. On October 15. Teodorico L. Accordingly. Labor Arbiter Teodorico L. with a monthly salary of P300.00 a day. Ruiz. provides: SECTION 1. 1983. he was made an inspector of the Fire Division with a monthly salary of P685. on the grounds of tardiness and unexcused absences. as Labor Arbiter and Rogelio R.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. pp. 31-32)." In the same year. he filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE).R. until he was transferred to the Fire Department as filing clerk. the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed out of time. 1985 (Record. 1983. The record shows that the employer (petitioner herein) received a copy of the decision of the ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 42 . (a) Appeal. he was furnished a copy of petitioner company's "General Information. No.00 plus allowances and other benefits. Held: Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission on appeal. and in a Decision dated March 14. pp. 1977. in a Resolution dated November 15. Coria was dismissed from work. SECTION 6.

137 SCRA 314 [1985]). the consistent promotions in rank and salary of the private respondent indicate he must have been a highly efficient worker. It filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Appeal on April 11. Under the above-quoted provisions of the Revised NLRC Rules. it is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Labor Arbiter on April 1. the decision appealed from in this case has become final and executory and can no longer be subject to appeal. the ruling of the Labor Arbiter appears to be correct. Perfection cannot after all be demanded. 1985. Even on the merits. and are entitled to great respect (Espanol v. Pursuant to the "no extension policy" of the National Labor Relations Commission. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 43 . 1985 and the appeal was dismissed for having been filed out of time. 1985 and filed the Memorandum of Appeal on April 22. have the force of law. 1985. Moreover. aforesaid motion for extension of time was denied in its resolution dated November 15. Philippine Veterans Administration. The petition is DISMISSED. The Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission are clear and explicit and leave no room for interpretation. who should be retained despite occasional lapses in punctuality and attendance.

Gaw Pun So. reaffirming their stand on the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations under date of July 1. allowing Tiong King to close his business and shop. This agreement was duly approved by the Court of Industrial Relations. 231-245 Soler Street. subject to the condition that. pending the case in the Court of Industrial Relations. promulgated a resolution dated October 31. Manila. 1949. 1948. 1948. Tiong King filed a petition in the Court of Industrial Relations Case No. that as there remained only very little of the capital originally invested. Upon petitioner for reconsideration filed by counsel for Tiong King. Presiding Judge Arsenio C. located in his own house at Nos. The present appeal by certiorari was taken by Tiong King against the last resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations. This transfer was known to the personnel. upon reopening the same.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Princess C. 1949. The transfer was put in writing. and that he was definitely closing the shop on May 30. Upon motion for reconsideration filed by counsel for the National Tailor's Association. he had a labor dispute with his personnel and. In January. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 44 . Aragon 2011-0238 TIONG KING VS. On May 29. so much so that the latter. CIR G. No. the Court of Industrial Relations. irked and worried by the incidents of litigation. Roldan of the Court of Industrial Relations issued an order enjoining Tiong King not to close his factory and not to dismiss. 1949. Issue: Whether or not he was the owner or operator thereof and had the right to file the petition in the Court of Industrial Relations to close the tailor’s shop. Paras Facts: Gaw Pun So owned and operated a tailor shop known as the Army Shirt Factory. prayed that Tiong King be included as a respondent. his former personnel would be taken back. Tiong King accordingly prayed that he be allowed to close his tailor shop and business from six o'clock in the afternoon of May 29. alleging that since he operated his shop in February. Tiong King continued the Army Shirt Factory from the month of February with the same employees had by Gaw Pun So. thought of dissolving the business and selling the sewing machines. 1948. On April 27. the Court of Industrial Relations promulgated a resolution dated May 27. 117-V3.R. he had continually suffered losses. the National Tailors Association entered that all cases were terminated against the respondents. 1948. suspend or lay off any laborer or employee without previous authority of said court. 1951 Petitioner: Tiong King Respondent: Court of Industrial Relations and The National Tailor's Association Ponente: J. In due time. 1948. 1948. L-3587 December 21. Tiong King offered to take over the business by leasing the place and the sewing machines. as petitioner in the pending dispute in the Court of Industrial Relations.

however. 1949." This contention is followed with the remark that the approval of said agreement did not include a finding that Tiong King was either the owner or the lessee of the Army Shirt Factory. It is contended. that "If at all the court has approved of the agreement between the National Tailors' Association and Mr. to pay the salaries and wages of the personnel. That Tiong King was conceded to be the owner and operator of the army shirt factory at the time his petition to close it was filed. It is admitted by all the Judges of the Court of Industrial Relations that an employer may close his business. We are unable to agree. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 45 . is in consonance with the contract entered into between the management and the new workers. Considerations of fair play and justice demand that Tiong King be given the full legal effect of said agreement which before the sanction of the Court of Industrial Relations. 1949. it is only sufficient to recall that the National Tailors Association entered into a stipulation with Tiong King alone whereby they agreed that all cases against the former owners of the business were terminated. Indeed. regardless of the former owners of the business. 1949. provided the same is done in good faith and is due beyond his control. The court reversed the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations dated October 31. Tiong King it was because — 'this arrangement is a very good solution to the present conflict as it is advantageous not only to the union but also the management. and not Gaw Pun So. In entering into the agreement with the National Tailors Association. would be oppressive and inhuman. ordered Tiong King. There being no question that Tiong King's capital invested in the Army Shirt Factory was almost exhausted at the time of the filing of his petition to close it. Tiong King acted in his own behalf. said petition must necessity be granted. is conclusively borne out by the fact that Presiding Judge Roldan in his decision of January 13.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: Upon this point. and affirmed the resolution of said court dated May 27. it was covenanted that all the cases against the latter were deemed terminated. and. To rule otherwise.

It is so ordered. as owner of the vessel.00 for burial expenses was made bythe POEA pursuant to its Memorandum Circular No. Held: 1.00 for death benefits and P12.The petition is DISMISSED. to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipinos and to protect their rights. Yes. 2. including money claims. Whether or not the POEA had jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseasworker. according to the 1985Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment issued by the POEA. 76633 October 18. The award of P180. include. Under Section 4(a) of the said executive order. 1988 Eastern Shipping Lines Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Japan on March 15. 2 itself as violative of the principleof non-delegation of legislative power. No.000. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 46 . No. It replaced the National Seamen Board created earlier underArticle 20 of the Labor Code in 1974.1984.involving employee-employer relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contractinvolving Filipino contract workers.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. 2. Minister of Labor and Employment G. which became effective on February 1. 1985. the POEAis vested with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases.R. argued that the complaint was cognizable not by thePOEA but by the Social Security System and should have been filed against the State Fund Insurance. including seamen.disability and other benefits” arising out of such employment. The temporary restraining orderdated December 10. 797. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: G. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration was created under Executive OrderNo. Minister of Labor and Employment Cruz. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign and domesticshipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment. 1982. Whether or not the validity of Memorandum Circular No.The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of theparties ruled in favor of the complainant. POEA. Issue: 1.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: Eastern Shipping Lines vs.R." These cases. 1986 is hereby LIFTED.000. J. “claims for death.The petitioner. promulgated on May 1. Facts: Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accidentin Tokyo. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. 2of the POEA. with costs against the petitioner.His widow sued for damages under Executive Order No.

The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in requiring themodel contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in theexercise of the said authority. mandated it to protect the rightsof overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 47 . increating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION 2. Memorandum Circular No. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which. The model contractprescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the cases without challenge by theemployer. No. 2 is an administrative regulation.

: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: G. J. with a warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future would be met with a stiffer disciplinary sanction. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: PACIFIC ASIA OVERSEAS SHIPPING CORP. that Pascor was not a party to the Dubai court proceedings. On 4 September 1985. Petitioner Pascor filed a complaint against private respondent with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for acts unbecoming a marine officer and for. was engaged by petitioner Pascor as Radio Operator of a vessel belonging to Pascor's foreign principal. petitioner seeks the annulment and setting aside of the Resolutions of the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 14 August 1986 and 19 November 1986. the POEA found private respondent liable for inciting another officer or seaman to insubordination and challenging a superior officer to a fist fight and imposed six (6) months suspension for each offense or a total of twelve (12) months suspension. Four (4) months later. In its answer filed on 11 December 1985. and after having been transferred from one vessel to another four times for misbehavior and inability to get along with officers and crew members of each of the vessels. VS NLRC G. not having been properly authenticated. the POEA held petitioner Pascor liable to pay private respondent Rances the amount of US$ 1.R.: Facts: Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation (Pascor).500. The POEA decision passed over sub silentio the counterclaim of private respondent. which counsel filed a 'Memorandum on Appeal and/or Motion for Reconsideration" on 29 April 1986. In a decision dated 14 April 1986. the Gulf-East Ship Management Limited. Issue: Whether or not POEA denial of petitioner's appeal and Motion for Reconsideration is within its jurisdiction in rendering decision of its Orders dated 14 August and 19 November 1986? ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 48 ." This decision was served on petitioner's counsel on 18 April 1986. character assassination.R. petitioner Pascor made four principal arguments: that the copy of the Dubai decision relied upon by private respondent could not be considered as evidence. respectively. No. and that the claim had already been resolved in POEA. 76595 May 6. having been there dismissed as a counterclaim. denying Pascor's appeal for having been filed out of time and denying its Motion for Reconsideration. No.00 "at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of payment. that the POEA had no jurisdiction over cases for the enforcement of foreign judgments. the foreign principal terminated the services of private respondent Rances citing the latter's poor and incorrigible work attitude and incitement of others to insubordination. 1988 Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation National Labor Relations Commission Feliciano.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. Private respondent Teodoro Rances sometime in March 1984.

This.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: The court conclude that the POEA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering its Decision dated 14 April 1986 and its Order dated 20 May 1986. ACCORDINGLY. however. there. this time on the basis alone of the contract of employment which existed between said respondent and petitioner or petitioner's foreign principal. and that public respondent NLRC similarly acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering its Orders dated 14 August 1986 and 19 November 1986 denying petitioner's appeal and Motion for Reconsideration. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on 8 December 1986 is hereby made PERCENT. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 49 . the Petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the Resolutions of public respondent NLRC dated 14 August 1986 and 19 November 1986 are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. is without prejudice to the right of respondent Rances to initiate another proceeding before the POEA against petitioner Pascor. respondent Rances may seek to show that he is still entitled to the allotments which he claims were not remitted by his employer to his wife. No pronouncement as to costs.

103144 April 4. the NLRC modified the appealed decision of the POEA Adjudication Office by deleting the award of salary deductions and differentials. 1989. They were again allegedly forced by their foreign employer to sign a third contract which increased their work hours from 48 hours to 60 hours a week without any corresponding increase in their basic monthly salary.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT and SERVICES CORPORATION vs. On the aspects of the case involving money claims arising from the employer-employee relations and illegal dismissal. J Facts: Philsa is a domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment. private respondents were allegedly made to sign a second contract which changed some of the provisions of their original contract resulting in the reduction of some of their benefits and privileges. they filed a case before the POEA against petitioner Philsa and its foreign principal. private respondents. However. While in Saudi Arabia. No. When they refused to sign this third contract. the POEA rendered a decision dated August 31.R. having failed to comply with the Rules of Court and Circular No. THE HON. Upon their arrival in the Philippines.R. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: G. the services of private respondents were terminated by Al-Hejailan and they were repatriated to the Philippines. They then began work for Al-Hejailan Consultants A/E. The awards to private respondents were deleted by the NLRC considering that these were not raised in the complaint filed by private respondents. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT G.500. No. 1988 ordering respondent PHILSA to pay complainants. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 50 .R. Al-Hejailan. the petition was dismissed outright for "insufficiency in form and substance. 1989 decision of the NLRC to the Supreme Court in a petition for review for certiorari where it was docketed as G. the foreign principal of petitioner.00 for private respondent Rodrigo L. 1989 . 2001 Philsa International Placement And Services Corporation The Hon. private respondents demanded from petitioner Philsa the return of their placement fees and for the payment of their salaries for the unexpired portion of their contract. No. Secretary Of Labor And Employment Gonzaga-Reyes. When petitioner refused. 1985. jointly and severally with its principal Al-Hejailan. Mikin and P6. 1989. de Mesa and Cedric P. Private respondents then elevated the July 26. 1-88 requiring submission of a certified true copy of the questioned resolution dated August 23. private respondents left for Saudi Arabia on January 29. Leyson.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I.00 each for private respondents Vivencio A. who were recruited by petitioner for employment in Saudi Arabia. In a decision dated July 26. 89089. Sometime in January 1985. in a Resolution dated October 25. were required to pay placement fees in the amount of P5. After the execution of their respective work contracts.000.

11. Under the POEA Rules and Regulations. the said NLRC Decision dealt only with the money claims of private respondents arising from employer-employee relations and illegal dismissal and as such. the POEA found petitioner guilty of illegal exaction. the POEA Adjudication Office precisely declared that "respondent's liability for said money claims is without prejudice to and independent of its liabilities for the recruitment violations aspect of the case which is the subject of a separate Order. The POEA thus committed no grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner administratively liable of one count of unlawful deduction/withholding of salary. However. Accordingly. 1991. contract substitution. 1988 decision of the POEA on private respondents' money claims. in an Order dated September 13. which are distinct and separate from the money claims of private respondents. In this Order. or with grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner liable for illegal deductions/withholding of salaries for the supreme court itself has already absolved petitioner from this charge. public respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment affirmed in toto the assailed Order. However. 2. The administrative sanctions. is void for lack of publication. the POEA issued a separate Order dated August 29. in the August 31. which enumerated the allowable fees which may be collected from applicants. 1988 Decision of the POEA dealing with the money claims of private respondents. Series of 1983. may still be properly imposed by the POEA. 1989 Decision of the NLRC has attained finality by reason of the dismissal of the petition for certiorari assailing the same. it is only for the payment of the said money claims that petitioner is absolved. after the denial of its motion for reconsideration. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 51 . Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was likewise denied in an Order dated November 25. Held: 1. Petitioner is correct in stating that the July 26. Issue: 1." The fact that petitioner has been absolved by final judgment for the payment of the money claim to private respondent de Mesa does not mean that it is likewise absolved from the administrative sanctions which may be imposed as a result of the unlawful deduction or withholding of private respondents' salary.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Almost simultaneous with the promulgation of the August 31. and unlawful deduction. Whether or not the public respondent has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. 1988 Order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. the decision of the POEA thru the LRO suspending or canceling a license or authority to act as a recruitment agency may be appealed to the Ministry (now Department) of Labor and Employment. petitioner appealed the August 31. 1991. Whether or not the petitioner can be held liable for illegal exaction as POEA Memorandum Circular No. 1988 resolving the recruitment violations aspect of private respondents' complaint. In fact.

Series of 1983 has not been shown to fall under any of these exceptions. namely Philippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for Hong Kong. Administrative Circular No. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 52 . Our pronouncement in Tañada vs. does not take it away from the ambit of our ruling in Tañada vs. or those so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a specified group. Association of Service Exporters vs. the said circulars may not be enforced or implemented. for lack of proper publication. In the case of Phil. those merely internal in nature. 2. .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION 2. The administrative circular under consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity. namely private employment agencies or authority holders. Series of 1983 has not as yet been published or filed with the National Administrative Register. the same is ineffective and may not be enforced. Tuvera. Torres. The only exceptions are interpretative regulations. and still the Court ruled therein that. No. 2. Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Tuvera is clear and categorical. Considering that POEA Administrative Circular No. the administrative circulars questioned therein were addressed to an even smaller group. since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.

The model contract prescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the cases without challenge by the employer. POEA G. Whether or not the POEA had jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseasworker. It replaced the National Seamen Board created earlier under Article 20 of the Labor Code in 1974. with costs against the petitioner.The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of the complainant. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: G. No.R. His widow sued for damages under Executive Order No. including money claims. Japan on March 15. 1982. Issue: 1.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: Eastern Shipping Lines vs. promulgated on May 1. 1986 is hereby LIFTED.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. argued that the complaint was cognizable not by the POEA but by the Social Security System and should have been filed against the State Fund Insurance. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. Whether or not the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2of the POEA. Under Section 4(a) of the said executive order. increating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. 76633 October 18. 1988 Eastern Shipping Lines Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Cruz. It is so ordered. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which. 2. Yes. as owner of the vessel. 2 is an administrative regulation. mandated it to protect the rightsof overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices 2. 2 itself as violative of the principleof non-delegation of legislative power.The petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining orderdated December 10. Facts: Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accident in Tokyo. to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipinos and to protect their rights.The petitioner. the POEA is vested with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases. Held: 1.R. J. involving employee-employer relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contractinvolving Filipino contract workers. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration was created under Executive OrderNo. No. Memorandum Circular No. The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in requiring the model contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in the exercise of the said authority. including ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 53 . 797. No. 1985.

This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment.1984.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION seamen. which became effective on February 1.00 for death benefits and P12. according to the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment issued by the POEA. The award of P180.disability and other benefits” arising out of such employment.000. “claims for death. include. 2. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 54 .00 for burial expenses was made by the POEA pursuant to its Memorandum Circular No." These cases.000.

Ditan having been excluded.196.000. along with other foreign workers. Asia World. moreover. In the end. he was told he would be sent home if he refused the new assignment. US$2. No. Ditan and the other Filipino hostages were back in the Philippines. 1985. the petitioner was assigned as an ordinary welder in the INTRACO central maintenance shop from December 2 to 25. 79560 December 3. in Luanda. And/Or Intraco Sales Corporation.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. It was only on March 16. and moral and exemplary damages in the sum of US$50. and contained the required standard stipulations for the protection of our overseas workers. capital of Angola. at a monthly salary of US$1. Ditan Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Administrator. plus attorney's fees. killing two Filipinos in the raid.00. with much misgiving. The Unita rebels attacked the diamond mining site where Ditan was working and took him and sixteen other Filipino hostages. 1984. Cruz. to his distress that would be transferred to Kafunfo.00. The repatriated workers had been assured by INTRACO that they would be given priority in re-employment abroad. They subsisted on meager fare. POEA ADMINISTRATOR G.00 weekly. Ditan was reluctant to go. Ditan was recruited by private respondent Intraco Sales Corporation. 1984.675. 1987. he filed in June 1985 a complaint against the private respondents for breach of contract and various other claims. 1987. The rebels and their captives walked through jungle terrain for 31 days to the Unita stronghold near the Namibian border. through its local agent. Issue: Whether or not this case is within NLRC jurisdictiona and if Ditan is entitled to any relief? ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 55 . that the hostages were finally released after the intercession of their governments and the International Red Cross. Specifically. US$25. Naturally. They trekked for almost a thousand kilometers.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: DITAN VS. All these claims were dismissed by POEA Administrator Tomas D.50 as the value of his lost belongings. some 350 kilometers east of Luanda.. Asiaworld Recruitment. No. Inc. US$1.00 as war risk bonus. the other private respondent. The contract was for nine months. However. On December 29. On December 26. he relented and agreed.000. 1984. his fears were confirmed. Six days later. he was informed.00 or US$275. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: G. 3 which is now being challenged in this petition. to work in Angola as a welding supervisor. Arriving on November 30. National Labor Relations Commission. Achacoso in a decision dated January 27. he sought the amount of US$4. Their feet were blistered.R.R.100. and eventually eleven of them were taken back. 2 This was affirmed in toto by respondent NLRC in a resolution dated July 14.100 for unpaid vacation leave. J Facts: Andres E. earlier that year. he was assured by the INTRACO manager that Kafunfo was safe and adequately protected by government troops. This was the place where. representing his salaries for the unexpired 17 weeks of his contract. Some of them had diarrhea. 1990 Andres E. 1984. the rebels had attacked and kidnapped expatriate workers.

The petitioner went to Angola prepared to work as he had promised in accordance with the employment contract he had entered into in good faith with the private respondents. Upon his release. the stipulation could not be applied to the petitioner as it was not supposed to have a retroactive effect." Consequently. The paramount duty of this Court is to render justice through law. The promise of INTRACO was that they would be given priority in re-employment should their services be needed. presumably so they could recover from their ordeal. because it was really intended all along to assign him only to Kafunfo. It would seem that his work was terminated.675. he was sent to a dangerous assignment and as he feared was taken hostage in a rebel attack that prevented him from fulfilling his contract while in captivity. 1985"after the petitioner's deployment to Angola on November 27. WHEREFORE. Hence. The fact that stands out most prominently in the record is the risk to which the petitioner was subjected when he was assigned. The choice is obvious. including Kafunfo.00. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 56 . That choice would have required him to come home empty-handed to the disappointment of an expectant family. it is argued. that the petitioner is entitled to relief. The private respondents are hereby DIRECTED jointly and severally to pay the petitioner: a) the current equivalent in Philippine pesos of US$4. Under the policy of social justice. considering the totality of the circumstances attending this case.000. The petitioner was left only with a bleak experience and nothing to show for it except dashed hopes and a sense of rejection. he cannot now complain that there was a breach of that contract for which he is entitled to monetary redress. many of his co-hostages were re-employed as promised. without indication of any particular place of assignment in the country. and not again required. representing his unpaid salaries for the balance of the contract term. He was immediately repatriated with the promise that he would be given priority in reemployment.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: Yes. the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privileges in life should have more privileges in law. categorizing Angola as a war risk took effect only on February 6.00. Rule VI. after his reluctant consent. Over his objection. one strictly in favor of the employers and the other liberally in favor of the worker. This meant he agreed to be assigned to work anywhere in that country. The law in this case allows two opposite interpretations. 4. We find. 1984. the promise was not fulfilled. The private respondents also reject the claim for war risk bonus and point out that POEA Memorandum Circular No. the challenged resolution of the NLRC is hereby MODIFIED. It is not explained why the petitioner was not paid for the unexpired portion of his contract which had 17 more weeks to go. it was merely exercising its rights under the employment contract that Ditan had freely entered into. No costs. The petitioner had gone to that foreign land in search of a better life that he could share with his loved ones after his stint abroad. and c) 10% attorney's fees. In the particular case of the petitioner. of the POEA Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment. When INTRACO assigned Ditan to that place in the regular course of its business. issued pursuant to the mandatory war risk coverage provision in Section 2. which never came. he was immediately sent home and was not paid the salary corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract. The private respondents stress that the contract Ditan entered into called for his employment in Angola. b) nominal damages in the amount of P20. The hostages were immediately repatriated after their release. To rub salt on the wound. to the rebel-infested region of Kafunfo. This was a dangerous area.

such as over-hiring of workers. FEBROE averred that in July and August 1986. Tierra contended that the employment contract does not provide for separation pay in case of termination based on redundancy or reduction of force due to a decrease in volume or scope of work. Olivar was hired by FEBROE. POEA then ordered Tierra and FEBROE to pay Olivar his separation pay. NLRC reversed the decision of POEA and ordered the company to pay Olivar corresponding to the unexpired portion of his contract. for a period of one (1) year with a basic monthly salary of US $680. No. A position is redundant where it is superfluous. and subsequently repatriated to the Philippines. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: G.R. POEA held that the termination was for authorized cause. he was dismissed from employment. 101825 April 2.R. Navy in the British Indian Ocean Territory of Diego Garcia. a foreign shipping company. YES. or a shade of termination because of redundancy under Article 283 of the Labor Code. efficiency and profitability in its operations.S. through its local agent Tierra International Construction Corporation. Technical.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: TIERRA INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP V NLRC (OLIVAR) G.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. its management undertook a comprehensive audit and evaluation of its entire work force to promote economy. J. Olivar received his notice of termination advising him that his position will be deleted because of a reduction of force due to a decrease in scope of work assigned. Issue: Whether or not termination of Olivar is illegal and Olivar is entitled to separation pay? Held: . and to reduce personnel whose positions were considered redundant or surplusage and/or to re-assign personnel to other available useful positions. 1996 Tierra International Construction Corp National Labor Relations Commission (OLIVAR) Mendoza. what is looked into is the position itself. Olivar alleged that he was a victim of improper termination of employment thru gradual and systematic removal of high salaried employees. One of the positions listed for abolition was the position of the olivar as "13401 — Supervisor. to work as shift supervisor in its Base Operating Support (BOS) project for the U. Olivar was not singled out and that his termination was not arbitrary or malicious on the part of the ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 57 . the last renewal was on 8 May 1986. Termination of an employee's services because of a reduction of work force due to a decrease in the scope or volume of work of the employer is synonymous to. No. In redundancy. But on 1 October 1986. Olivar’s employment contract was renewed in 1985. and superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors. decreased volume of business. or dropping of a particular product line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise. the nature of the services performed by the employee and the necessity of such position. Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise.: Facts: March 7 1984: private respondent Isidro P. 28 other positions were also abolished.00. the termination was for a valid cause.

No pronouncements as to costs.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION employer. Thus. Olivar is entitled to separation pay. this provisions of law which regulate such contracts are deemed included and shall limit and govern the relations between the parties. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 58 . but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order. Tierra admits that Article 283 of the Labor Code governs its employer-employee relationship with the private respondent as the same is deemed written in the employment contract signed by the parties. although a contract is the law between the parties. Decision of the NLRC is reversed and set aside. The law does not make any distinction between a technical and a non-technical position for purposes of determining the validity of termination due to redundancy. YES. Not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix the obligations as between the parties. and the decision of the POEA is revived. There is no mention of an award of separation pay in the contract between the parties. HOWEVER. thereto. Neither does the law nor the stipulations of the employment contract here involved require that junior employees should first be terminated (in answer to NLRC’s reasoning that junior employees should be terminated first before the technical and senior positions).

110524 Date: July 29. Esso International denied Millares’ request for optional retirement on the following grounds. He was promoted as Chief Engineer in 1980. No. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: MILLARES VS.: G. petitioner Lagda was employed by Esso International as wiper/oiler in 1969.R. On the other hand. Facts: Douglas Millares was employed by ESSO International through its local manning agency. Subsequently. after failing to return to work after the expiration of his leave of absence. On appeal. In 1989. No.e. Millares and Lagda filed a complaint-affidavit for illegal dismissal and non-payment of employee benefits against private respondents Esso International and Trans-Global before the POEA. Millares was dropped from the roster of crew members effective September 1. NLRC rationcinated that Millares and Lagda. Lagda likewise filed a leave of absence and applied to avail of the optional early retirement plan in view of his twenty years continuous service in the company. to wit: 1) he was employed on a contractual basis 2) his contract of enlistment (COE) did not provide for retirement before the age of sixty years. 1989. Lagda was also dropped from the roster of crew members effective September 1. and Esso International Shipping Co. as seamen and overseas contract workers are not covered by the term “regular employment” as defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Ponente: Kapunan. Unable to return for contractual sea service after his leave of absence expire. 3) he did not comply with the requirement for claiming benefits under the CEIP. Trans-global similarly denied Lagda’s request for availment of the optional early retirement scheme on the same grounds upon which Millares request was denied.. a position he continued to occupy until his last COE expired in 1989. NLRC G.. J. in 1968 as a machinist. petitioner Millares filed a leave of absence and applied for optional retirement plan under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP) considering that he had already rendered more than twenty years of continuous service. which is tasked with protecting the rights of the Filipino workers for overseas employment to fair and equitable recruitment and employment practices and to ensure their welfare. In 1975. 1989. Inc. The POEA. In 1989. he was promoted as Chief Engineer which position he occupied until he opted to retire in 1989. Ltd. Issue: Whether or not seafarers are considered regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 59 . TransGlobal. i. The POEA rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. NLRC affirmed the decision of the POEA dismissing the complaint.R.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. prescribes a standard employment contract for seamen on board ocean-going vessels for a fixed period but in no case to exceed twelve months. to submit a written advice to the company of his intention to terminate his employment within thirty days from his last disembarkation date. 2002 Petitioner: Douglas Millares and Rogelio Lagda Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission. Trans-Global Maritime Agency.

Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. Limited access to shore society during the employment will have an adverse impact on the seafarer. It is for the mutual interest of both the seafarer and the employer why the employment status must be contractual only or for a certain period of time. C specifically provides that the contract of seamen shall be for a fixed period. They fall under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of 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. the Supreme Court ruled that seafarers are considered contractual employees. And in no case should the contract of seamen be longer than 12 months. 1990. Overseas workers including seafarers fall under this type of employment which are governed by the mutual agreements of the parties. They can not be considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. cultural and lingual diversity among the crew during the COE is a reality that necessitates the limitation of its period. there are certain forms of employment which also require the performance of usual and desirable functions and which exceed one year but do not necessarily attain regular employment status under Article 280. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 60 . NLRC. particularly in Part I. the Court held that it is an accepted maritime industry practice that employment of seafarers are for a fixed period only. Filipino seamen are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the POEA. Quoting Brent School Inc. v. Sec. The national. and Pablo Coyoca v. The Standard Employment Contract governing the employment of All Filipino seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels of the POEA. Constrained by the nature of their employment which is quite peculiar and unique in itself. they can not stay for a long and an indefinite period of time at sea. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: . Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires. 1995. Moreover. Zamora. As ruled in Brent case. And as stated in the Coyoca case. Seafarers spend most of their time at sea and understandably. it is for the mutual interest of both the seafarer and the employer why the employment status must be contractual only or for a certain period of time.

this petition. Moreover. Issue: Whether or not private respondent is illegally dismissed. No. enumerating incidents in proof thereof. the Code requires the service of a written notice containing a statement of the cause/s of termination and giving said employee ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. When petitioners issued the accommodation. filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration IPOEA) for illegal dismissal against Vinta Maritime Co. 113911 January 23.R. A notice of termination in writing is further required if the employee’s dismissal is decided upon. and neither of these elements can be eliminated without running afoul of the constitutional ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 61 . Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: G. Due process. It cannot exculpate petitioners based on such misrepresentation. this is contradicted by private respondent’s seaman’s book which states that his discharge was due to an emergency leave. On appeal. J Facts: Leonides Basconsillo. petitioners alleged that Leonides was dismissed for his gross negligence and incompetent performance as chief engineer of the M/V Boracay. his alleged incompetence is belied by the remarks made by petitioners in the same book that private respondent’s services were “highly recommended” and that his conduct and ability were rated “very good “. The Court cannot consent to such an accommodation.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: VINTA MARITIME COMPANY V NLRC G. and Elkano Ship Management. The POEA ruled that private respondent was illegally dismissed. Held: The absence of a valid cause for termination in this case is apparent. The employer must furnish the worker with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and (2) subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss. Inc. Inc. even if the allegation were true. 1998 Vinta Maritime Company National Labor Relations Commission Panganiban. Petitioners allege that private respondent was dismissed because of his incompetence. However. Likewise. the NLRC denied the motion for reconsideration. they must have known its possible repercussions.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I.R. the NLRC affirmed the POEA. Before the employee can be dismissed under Art. 1) the dismissal must be for a valid cause and 2) the employee must be afforded due process. For an employee’s dismissal to be valid. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process. as it is a blatant misrepresentation. private respondent. Petitioners’ allegation that such remark and ratings were given to private respondent as an accommodation for future employment fails to persuade. Hence. the second element for a valid dismissal. No. 282. requires notice and hearing.

Illegally dismissed workers are entitled to the payment of their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment where the employment is for a definite period. the administrator and the NLRC properly awarded private respondent salaries for the period of the effectivity of his contract.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION guaranty. . Conformably. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 62 .

. that the police report submitted to the Philippine Embassy in Bangkok confirmed that it was Pineda who "approached and tried to stab the police sergeant with a knife and that therefore he was forced to pull out his gun and shot Pineda" Petitioner contends that they are not liable to pay any death/burial benefits pursuant to the provisions of Par. that his flight schedule from Dubai to the Philippines necessitated a stopover at Bangkok. seaman Pineda. (in)capacity. Inc. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: Inter Orient Maritime Enterprises Inc. Inc. Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission And Constancia Pineda Ponente: Panganiban.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. against Interorient Maritime Enterprises. Part II.. a foreign land. Section C. Inc. Thailand. could not reasonably be expected to immediately resort to and avail of psychiatric examination. Fircroft Shipping Corporation and the Times Surety and Insurance Co. In this instance.: G. seaman Jeremias Pineda. In a Decision dated March 30. 1989.R. that the deceased seaman died due to his own willful (sic) act in attacking a policeman in Bangkok who shot him in self-defense. POEA Standard Format of Employment which state(s) that "no compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury. 1994 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission dismissing the appeals of petitioners and affirming the decision dated November 16. that on October 5. Inc. Fircroft Shipping Corporation And Times Surety & Insurance Co.R. this recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action for certiorari per Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 1992 of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Administrator Felicisimo C. public respondent upheld the POEA. On September 28.. The following facts were found by the POEA Administrator. Joson. This is a claim for death compensation benefits filed by Constancia Pineda as heir of her deceased son. Facts: The instant petition seeks the reversal and/or modification of the Resolution dated March 30. No. 6. 1994. 1990.. it received a fax transmission from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the effect that Jeremias Pineda was shot by a Thai Officer on duty on October 2. the POEA Administrator rendered his decision holding petitioners liable for death compensation benefits and burial expenses. assuming that he was still capable of submitting himself to ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 63 . J. he finished his contract and was discharged from the port of Dubai for repatriation to Manila. After the parties presented their respective evidence. which recites at length the reasons for holding that the deceased Pineda was mentally sick prior to his death and concomitantly. and its foreign principal. 1989 at around 4:00 P. disability or death resulting from a willful (sic) act on his own life by the seaman". Issue: Whether the petitioners can be held liable for the death of seaman Jeremias Pineda? Held: Yes.M. 1996 Petitioner: Interorient Maritime Enterprises. Thus. The petitioners contention that the assailed Resolution has no factual and legal bases is belied by the adoption with approval by the public respondent of the findings of the POEA Administrator. was no longer in full control of his mental faculties. No. Petitioners appealed the POEA decision to the public respondent. et al vs NLRC G.. 115497 Date: September 16. and during said stopover he disembarked on his own free will and failed to join the connecting flight to Hongkong with final destination to Manila. who was discharged in Dubai.

petitioners "should have observed some precautionary measures and should not have allowed said seaman to travel home alone". and this Court agrees. the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Decision assailed in this petition is AFFIRMED. proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions. is appalling to say the least. Such attitude harks back to another time when the landed gentry practically owned the serfs. this Court held that ". the fact that the deceased suffered from mental disorder at the time of his repatriation means that he must have been deprived of the full use of his reason. Firstly. . for the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable. Employee's Compensation Commission. the sickness must be the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex 'A' of the Rules (the Amended Rules on Employee's Compensation) with the conditions set therein satisfied. premises considered. The uncaring attitude displayed by petitioners who. and that in the case of De Jesus vs. This Court agrees with the POEA Administrator that seaman Pineda was no longer acting sanely when he attacked the Thai policeman. knowing fully well that its employee had been suffering from some mental disorder. he was already discharged and without employment — his contract having already run its full term — and he had already been put on a plane bound for the Philippines.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION such examination at that time. his will must have been impaired. 1990 depicting the deceased's strange behavior shortly before he was shot dead. nevertheless still allowed him to travel home alone. we also agree that in light of the deceased's mental condition. The report of the Philippine Embassy in Thailand dated October 9. but it cannot deny that it was expressly tasked by its agreement to assure the safe return of said worker. at the very least. WHEREFORE. The foreign employer may not have been obligated by its contract to provide a companion for a returning employee. willful or voluntary act on his part. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 64 . clearly shows that the man was not in full control of his own self. and disposed of them when the latter had grown old. . sick or otherwise lost their usefulness. and apart from that. the aforequoted provision of the Standard Format Contract of Employment exemption the employer from liability should not apply in the instant case. not to mention the fact that when he disembarked in Dubai. that since Pineda attacked the Thai policeman when he was no longer in complete control of his mental faculties. and their failure to do so rendered them liable for the death of Pineda. Petitioners further argue that the cause of Pineda's death "is not one of the occupational diseases listed by law". his attack on the policeman can in no wise be characterized as a deliberate. having during said stopover wandered out of the Bangkok airport's immigration area on his own. Costs against petitioners. Secondly. The POEA Administrator ruled. after having wandered around Bangkok for four days. and that thereby. Thus. otherwise. Such mental disorder became evident when he failed to join his connecting flight to Hongkong.

Alekos purported to show that Cajeras himself asked for his repatriation has no evidentiary value. No. Yes. It is a unilateral act denied by Cajeras and the entry in no way satisfies the bilateral documentation to prove early termination of an overseas employment contract by mutual consent as required by the Standard Employment Contract. 127195. Cajeras started work on 8 August 1995 but less than 2 months later. Petitioners fell short of the requirement. as Chief Cook Steward on the MV Prigipos. Et Al. J. he was examined at the Medical Center for Seamen by Dr. Petitioners covenanted strict and faithful compliance with the terms and conditions of the Standard Employment Contract approved by POEA/DOLE which provides that the employment of a Filipino seaman may be terminated prior to the expiration of the stipulated period provided that the master and the seaman (a) mutually consent thereto and (b) reduce their consent in writing. Hoed. Issue: Whether or not Cajeras was illegally dismissed and how much salary is due him? Held: . After the ship's arrival at Holland. INC. Cajeras alleged that he was assigned not only as Chief Cook Steward but also as assistant cook and messman and performed various inventory and requisition jobs.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: MARSAMAN MANNING AGENCY. After his arrival in Manila. Facts: Cajeras was hired by Marsaman. 1999 Marsaman Manning Agency. National Labor Relations Commission BELLOSILLO. NLRC affirmed the appealed findings and conclusions. vs.R. The Labor Arbiter resolved the dispute in favor of Cajeras ruling that the latter's discharge allegedly by "mutual consent" was not proved by convincing evidence. He was handed his Seaman's Service Record Book with the entry: "Cause of discharge — Mutual Consent" to which Cajeras promptly objected. who neither apprised Cajeras about the diagnosis nor issued the requested medical certificate allegedly because he himself would forward the results to Cajeras' superiors.R. he was repatriated to the Philippines. 1999 August 25. NLRC G. August 25.. for a contract period of 10 months with a monthly salary of US$600. Inc. Cajeras was ordered to prepare for immediate repatriation the following day. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 65 .. The vessel's Deck Log wherein an entry made by Capt. Upon returning to the vessel. No document exists whereby the alleged "mutual consent" was reduced to writing.00. No. or on 28 September 1995. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: G. local manning agent of Diamantides. ET AL. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Cajeras complained to Marsaman but to no avail.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. Because of his additional assignments he began to feel sick and requested for medical attention.

Petitioners insist that Cajeras is entitled only to salaries for 3 months pursuant to the last portion of Sec.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION On the amount of salaries due Cajeras. Therefore. plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract or for 3 months for every year of the unexpired term whichever is less.6 months awarded by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC. 10 of RA 8042. Sec. 10 as opposed to the salaries for 8.. whichever is less. whether his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or 3 months' salary for every year of the unexpired term. the choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker.e. However. 10 of RA 8042 provides that an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest at 12% per annum.100. i.00 and reimburse the latter's placement fee with 12% interest per annum conformably with Sec. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 66 . comes into play only when the employment contract concerned has a term of at least 1 year or more. petitioners should pay Cajeras his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or USD$5.

In its defense. which the NLRC denied in its second resolution. respondent was to undergo a probationary period of forty (40) days. because of financial constraints. however. Respondent applied to work overseas as caretaker thru petitioner. he was terminated by Hsien and received his salary and instructed for departure to the Philippines. the amount unlawfully deducted from respondent’s monthly wage. moral damages. 2005 Athenna International Manpower Services. No. The respondent filed a complaint before Adjudication Office of the POEA. instead of the job for which he was hired. On appeal.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. he had to go home to Polanco. However. It found that respondent was not at all dismissed. exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. at the job site. respondent was found to be unfit for his work. 9. violation of contract. complain because he needed money to pay for the debts he incurred back home. the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.000 and the remaining will be paid through salary deductions.R.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: ATHENA INTL MANPOWER SERVICES INC V VILLANOS G. Issue: 1.000 but instead the petitioner gave him a summary of expenses relating his deployment. However.R. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: G.000 but the respondent begged to reduced the fee and it was reduced to P94. as a hydraulic installer/repairer for car lifters. Nonito Villanos Quisumbing. much less illegally. respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals and granted the petition and reversing the questioned resolutions of the NLRC.. owned by Hsien.000 with the petitioner paying only P30. Upon arrival on Taiwan. Respondent seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration. Barely a month after his placement. No. petitioner alleged that under the employment contract. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision holding petitioner and Wei Yu Hsien solidarily liable for the wages representing the unserved portion of the employment contract. the respondent went to petitioner’s office and demanded for the reimbursement of P30. and recovery of unpaid salaries and other benefits before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. he was assigned to a mechanical shop. Dipolog City. 151303 April 15.J: Facts: The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in recruitment and placement of workers for overseas employment. He did not. thus he resigned from his employment and requested for his repatriation signing a statement to that effect. was it proper for the Court of Appeals to affirm in toto the monetary awards in the Decision of the Labor Arbiter? ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 67 . Inc. Upon arrival. The petitioner asked for a placement fee amounting to P100. Zamboanga del Norte and filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal. Whether or not the respondent was illegally dismissed.

we must sustain the award of P50. Lastly.000 in moral damages and P50. In this case respondent avers that petitioner did not explain why he was unqualified nor inform of any qualifications needed for the job prior to his deployment as mandated by Art 281[9] of the Labor Code and failed to prove the legality of the dismissal. despite the fact that the burden of proof lies on the employment and recruitment agency. because of the breach of contract and bad faith alleged against the employer and the petitioner. An employee voluntarily resigns when he finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service. the SC declared the petitioner solidarily liable with Wei Yu Hsien to pay the unexpired portion based on Sec 10 RA 8042. thus. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 68 . On the second issue. the respondent was illegally dismissed.The SC denied the petition and affirmed with modification the resolution by the Court of Appeals. he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment.000 as exemplary damages.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: Yes. in addition to attorney’s fees of ten percent (10%) of the aggregate monetary awards. On the first issue.

200 Saudi Riyals (SR).LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. On May 26. 1998 Petitioner: Asian Center For Career And Employment System And Services. Petitioner merely impugns the monetary awards granted by the NLRC to private respondent. The term of his contract was two (2) years. respondent applied with petitioner for vacation leave with pay and was granted. Saudi Arabia with a monthly salary of 1.: Facts: Petitioner hired respondent IBNO MEDIALES to work as a mason in Jeddah. No. it applies to the case. J. 1997. Hence. his co-workers informed him that he has been dismissed. petitioner’s illegal dismissal from service is no longer disputed. NLRC denied the motion. Hence. No.R. 1996. whichever is less that is why it should be three years should be used for the unexpired portion. this petition for certiorari. respondent filed a complaint with the labor arbiter for illegal dismissal. And found guilty and to pay the unexpired portion of the respondent ‘s contract which is 1. Issue: Whether or not the monetary awards granted by the NLRC to private respondent is correct? Held: The SC affirmed the decisions of NLRC with modifications regarding the basis of amount that the petitioner will pay to the respondent for the unexpired portion of employment contract. Petitioner moved for reconsideration with respect to the labor arbiter’s award by invoking Section 10 RA 8042 that a worker dismissed from overseas employment without just. Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission And Ibno Mediales Ponente: Puno. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 69 . The respondent should be paid by petitioner the 3 months unexpired portion of the contract. In the case at bar. Inc.200 multiplied by 8 months representing the unexpired portion.R. The effectivity of Section 10 RA 8042 took effect a year earlier from his vacation leave. from February 28.: G. 1995 until February 28. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC but the latter affirmed the decision of labor arbiter but modified the appealed decision by deleting the order of refund of excessive placement fee for lack of jurisdiction. 131656 Date: October 12. While en route to the Philippines. valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: ASIAN CENTER FOR CAREER & EMPLOYMENT SERVICES V NLRC & IBNO MEDIALES G.

argued that the complaint was cognizable not by thePOEA but by the Social Security System and should have been filed against the State FundInsurance. The award of P180. 76633 October 18. including seamen. No. 1985. No. 1986 is hereby LIFTED. promulgated on May 1. Issue: 1. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign and domesticshipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment. J. Yes. 1982.disability and other benefits” arising out of such employment.R. “claims for death. POEA G.00 for burial expenses was made bythe POEA pursuant to its Memorandum Circular No. Under Section 4(a) of the said executive order. Japan on March 15. the POEAis vested with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases. Whether or not the validity of Memorandum Circular No." These cases.The petition is DISMISSED.000. 797. 1988 Eastern Shipping Lines Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Cruz.000. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 70 . Whether or not the POEA had jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseasworker. 2. Balberan 2011-0076 Case Title: G. to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipinos and to protect their rights. It replaced the National Seamen Board created earlier underArticle 20 of the Labor Code in 1974.R.00 for death benefits and P12. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration was created under Executive OrderNo.involving employee-employer relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contractinvolving Filipino contract workers. It is so ordered. 797 and Memorandum Circular No.The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of theparties ruled in favour of the complainant. which became effective on February 1. according to the 1985Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment issued by the POEA.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: Eastern Shipping Lines vs. Facts: Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accidentin Tokyo. with costs against the petitioner. Held: 1.His widow sued for damages under Executive Order No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Germarie I. 2. include. as owner of the vessel.1984. including money claims. The temporary restraining orderdated December 10. 2 itself as violative of the principleof non-delegation of legislative power.The petitioner. 2of the POEA.

The model contractprescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the cases without challenge by theemployer. The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in requiring themodel contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in theexercise of the said authority. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which. Memorandum Circular No. increating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. 2 is an administrative regulation. mandated it to protect the rightsof overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 71 . No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION 2.

REYES CORTES. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: MANUELA S. private respondent's right ankle was crushed under the machine he was operating. Rules to Implement the Labor Code. 1988 MANUELA S. he returned to Saudi Arabia to resume his work.S. Power of the agency to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the principal or foreignbased employer for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment. On May 15. 77279 April 15. The contract was automatically renewed when private respondent was not repatriated by his Saudi employer but instead was assigned to work as a crusher plant operator.R. Held: Yes. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 72 . CATAN/M.1984. Facts: The Petitioner. Issue: Whether or not this was grounds for cancellation or suspension of license or authority of M. S.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. J. On March 30. [Section 10(a) (2) Rule V. 1983. as agent of Ali and Fahd Shabokshi Group. REYES G. No. Book I. 1983. a Saudi Arabian firm. Upon his return. while he was working as a crusher plant operator. he had his ankle treated for which he incurred further expenses.S. Even if indeed petitioner and the Saudi principal had already severed their agency agreement at the time private respondent was injured. CATAN PLACEMENT AGENCY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. recruited private respondent to work in Saudi Arabia as a steelman. Catan Placement Agency. CATAN/M. On September 9. petitioner may still be sued for a violation of the employment contract because no notice of the agency agreement's termination was given to the private respondent. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION and FRANCISCO D. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION and FRANCISCO D. a duly licensed recruitment agency. CATAN PLACEMENT AGENCY VS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. The Court ruled that a recruitment agency was solidarily liable for the unpaid salaries of a worker it recruited for employment in Saudi Arabia. he was repatriated.

S. Inc. IN VIEW WHEREOF. its insurer. 1888. AZUCENA. CENTRUM PROMOTIONS PLACEMENT CORPORATION.. and for not having been approved by the POEA. JOSE A.00) guaranteed to petitioner under the parties' standard employment contract is in accordance with the minimum employment standards with respect to wages set by the POEA. RAYALA. Thus. INC. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ. the basic salary of One Thousand Five Hundred U.. Dollars (US$6. JOSE N. SARMIENTO. INC. 1991. petitioner executed the following side agreement with her Japanese employer through her local manager. Held: Yes. Issue: Whether or not the there was an invalid side agreement present in the case at bar. and TIMES SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY. HON.. Charged in the case were private respondent Centrum Promotions and Placement Corporation. J. petitioner left for Osaka. 1988... and Jaz Talents Promotion. Subsequently. ROGELIO T.R.00). AZUCENA. JR.. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 73 . Inc. representing the unpaid portion of her basic salary for six months. She came back to the Philippines on June 14. Petitioner instituted the case at bench for underpayment of wages with the POEA on February 21. the petition is GRANTED Clearly. Times Surety and Insurance Co. private respondent Centrum Placement & Promotions Corporation. Jaz Talents Promotion..000. JOSE A.S. 1989. and TIMES SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY.000.00) in unpaid wages. Dollars (US$1. HON. HON. PUNO.S. On December 16. Facts: On December 1. She prayed for the payment of Six Thousand U.5000. JR. G. JOSE N. On December 5. 109808 March 1.00) is null and void for violating the POEA's minimum employment standards. The contract had a duration of two (2) to six (6) months. where she worked for six (6) months. DOMINGO H. entered into a standard employment contract for overseas Filipino artists and entertainers with Planning Japan Co. RAYALA. HON. Ltd. Co.00). Indeed. CENTRUM PROMOTIONS PLACEMENT CORPORATION.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. ROGELIO T. the Philippine representative of Planning Japan. ZAPANTA. HON. and petitioner was to be paid a monthly compensation of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars (US$1. 1995 ESALYN CHAVEZ HON. 1988. HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ. ZAPANTA. 1989. the POEA approved the contract. the side agreement which reduced petitioner's basic wage to Seven Hundred Fifty U. this side agreement is a scheme all too frequently resorted to by unscrupulous employers against our helpless overseas workers who are compelled to agree to satisfy their basic economic needs. until June 10. through its Philippine representative.500. an entertainment dancer. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: ESALYN CHAVEZ VS HON. petitioner. Japan. Dollars (US$750. SARMIENTO. Private respondents are held jointly and severally liable to petitioner for the payment of SIX THOUSAND US DOLLARS (US$6.. No. DOMINGO H.

et al. they bound themselves. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 74 . their heirs. and this decision is declared to be immediately executory. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION VS SECRETARY OF LABOR. executors. Facts: In connection with the application with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration of J&B Manpower Specialist. administrators." but also to "promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and implement the provisions" governing said activities. not only. The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Ministry of Labor in the penal sum of PESOS ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY for the payment of which will and truly to be made. as well as the authority. And the Secretary of Labor has the power under Section 35 of the law to apply these sanctions. Narvasa. a surety bond was filed on January 2. Because of non-deployment. for a license to engage in business as a recruitment agency. the Secretary of Labor gave the POEA "on its own initiative or upon filing of a complaint or report or upon request for investigation by any aggrieved person. ELVIRA VENTURA. herein petitioner. authority to conduct the necessary proceedings for the suspension or cancellation of the license or authority of any agency or entity" for certain enumerated offenses. ESTER TRANGUILLAN. 1990 EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION SECRETARY OF LABOR. EASCO essentially disclaimed liability on the ground that the claims were not expressly covered by the bond. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION. successors and assigns. J.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. the applicants filed separate complaints with the Licensing and Regulation Office of POEA against J&Bfor violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code between the months of April to October 1985. et al. L-79436-50 January 17. among others. complainants paid respondent various amounts for various fees. In consideration of promised deployment. Issue: Whether or not the POEA or the Secretary Labor had proper jurisdiction over the claims for refund filed by non-employees. that some of the claims were paid beyond or prior to the period of effectivity of the bond. ELVIRA VENTURA. conferred by Section 36. that POEA had no jurisdiction to order forfeiture of the bond. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION. Held: Yes. Inc. to "restrict and regulate the recruitment and placement activities of all agencies. in virtue of which they both held themselves firmly bound unto Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Pursuant to this rule-making power thus granted. The penalties of suspension and cancellation of license or authority are prescribed for violations of the above quoted provisions. ESTER TRANGUILLAN. jointly and severally. 1985 by the applicant and the Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation.

AND EDWIN CARDONES. that Pan Pacific had violated Article 32 of the Labor Code. the Petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. 1989 FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORP. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS AND EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION. Private respondents William Inocencio. no question that.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. Held: Yes. as amended and for refund of placement fees paid to Pan Pacific. The second paragraph of Article 31 of the Labor Code states that the secretary of Labor shall have the exclusive power to determine. Inc. ET AL. fee-charging. THE ADMINISTRATOR. AND EDWIN CARDONES. ("Pan Pacific") is a private. decide. Perfecto Palero. Rule II. Jr. ET AL.. Book II of the Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORP. recruitment and employment agency. There is. the cash or surety bond for any claim or injury covered and guaranteed by the bonds. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS AND EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION. THE ADMINISTRATOR. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 75 . In the case at bar. the POEA held. order or direct payment from. hence. Pan Pacific had violated at least one of the conditions for the grant and continued use of the recruitment license granted to it. Edwin Cardones and one Edwin Hernandez filed with the POEA separate complaints against Pan Pacific for violation of Articles 32 and 34 (a) of the Labor Code. both under the Labor Code and the POEA Rules and Regulations. Pan Pacific posted a surety bond issued by petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation ("Finman") and was granted a license to operate by the POEA. J. Issue: Whether or not the POEA or the Secretary of Labor had proper jurisdiction over the case. T in accordance with the requirements of Section 4. and the Secretary of Labor affirmed. Facts: Pan Pacific Overseas Recruiting Services. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 90273-75 November 15. VS WILLIAM INOCENCIO. or application of. WILLIAM INOCENCIO. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Feliciano. The complainants alleged that Pan Pacific charged and collected such fees from them but did not secure employment for them.

HAZEL. filed for death compensation benefits under the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Standard Contract of Employment and the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme (NIS) for Filipino Officers.00 for each child under eighteen years under the Norwegian NIS. that due to the lack of sanitary conditions at the time and place of implantation. No. 1991 while on board the M/V Pan Victoria.00 each as death compensation under the POEA Standard Contract of Employment and U. for herself and in behalf of her minor children CAESAR and ALPHA JOY. and HENDRICK.S. Facts: On July 5.000. died on board the vessel.R. all surnamed ENVIDIADO G. Malaysia at the time the tetanus became critical. Issue: Whether or not the heirs of the private petitioners are entitled to the death compensation benefits. $30. They alleged that the deceased were among three (3) Filipino seamen who implanted fragments of reindeer horn in their respective sexual organs on or about June 18.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. 1991. that the third seaman." that Misada and Envidiado died within days of the other.000. HAZEL.000. all three seamen suffered "severe tetanus" and "massive viral infections. private respondents. They prayed for U. for herself and in behalf of her minor children HENREA. Enrico Envidiado.00 for each wife and U. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS and BARBER INTERNATIONAL A/S VS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NELIA MISADA. Their claims were denied by petitioners. 1991. for herself and in behalf of her minor children CAESAR and ALPHA JOY. private respondent Himaya Envidiado likewise received notice that her husband. in their behalf and in behalf of their minor children. died on June 28. for herself and in behalf of her minor children HENREA. and HENDRICK. As heirs of the deceased seamen. all surnamed MISADA and HIMAYA ENVIDIADO. $8. Private respondents filed separate complaints before the POEA Adjudication Office.S. private respondent Nelia Misada received notice that her husband. Arturo Fajardo. The petitioners claimed that private respondents are not entitled to death benefits on the ground that the seamen's deaths were due to their own willful act. $13. all surnamed ENVIDIADO PUNO. all surnamed MISADA and HIMAYA ENVIDIADO.S. Eduardo Misada. 116629 January 16. 1998 NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS and BARBER INTERNATIONAL A/S THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NELIA MISADA. On July 12 1991. J. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 76 . narrowly missed death only because the vessel was at port in Penang.

the petition is dismissed and the decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CA No. And even if the seamen implanted fragments of reindeer horn in their sex organs. the evidence does not substantially prove that they contracted tetanus as a result of the unsanitary surgical procedures they performed on their bodies. petitioners' evidence insufficiently proves the fact that the deaths of the two seamen were caused by their own willful and deliberate act. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 77 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: Yes. Neither does the evidence show that the tetanus was the direct cause of their deaths. 006490-94 is affirmed As correctly found by respondent Commission.

25 which they claim should apply in this case. was the Second Engineer of M. they offered to pay private respondent Restituta C. Abordo alleged that the amount of compensation due her from petitioners Norse Management Co. REBENE C. arising out of or by virtue of any law or contracts involving Filipino seamen for overseas employment. As an alternative. HON. On the other hand. Abordo.T." filed before the National Seamen Board. the deceased husband of private respondent Restituta C. funeral expenses. ABORDO G. TORRES. "Cherry Earl" when he died from an apoplectic stroke in the course of his employment with petitioner NORSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTE). Held: Yes. Restituta C. (PTE) and Pacific Seamen Services. SIDDAYAO. Finally. provides that the National Seamen Board has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters or cases including money claims.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. Article IV of the Labor Code provides that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code. L-54204 September 30. INC. Abordo at the time of his death was receiving a monthly salary of US$850. attorney's fees and other benefits and reliefs available in connection with the death of Napoleon B. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 78 . HON. involving employer-employee relations. (PTE) and PACIFIC SEAMEN SERVICES. J. "Cherry Earl" is a vessel of Singaporean Registry. respectively. SIDDAYAO. CRESCENCIO M. No. ABORDO RELOVA. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: NORSE MANAGEMENT CO. principal and agent. REBENE C.000. accrued leave pay and time-off allowances. including its implementing rules and resolved in favor of labor. According to Article 20 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Abordo.R.00. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD. should be based on the law where the vessel is registered. OSCAR M. petitioners contend that the law of Singapore should not be applied in this case because the National Seamen Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen's Insurance Law of Singapore. Issue: Whether or not the National Seamen Board had proper jurisdiction over the case at bar. 1982 NORSE MANAGEMENT CO. The M.. CARRERA and RESTITUTA C. INC. Facts: Napoleon B. The late Napoleon B. CARRERA and RESTITUTA C. CRESCENCIO M. OSCAR M. TORRES. In her complaint for "death compensation benefits. Abordo.00 as death benefits based on the Board's Memorandum Circular No. Abordo the sum of P30. Inc. VS NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD. (PTE) and PACIFIC SEAMEN SERVICES.T.

R. stating that petitioner had paid P18. the Sheriff had in the meantime refrained from collecting the balance of the award until the Board shall have passed upon this matter. 1982. Brigido Samson. On December 17. this particular statute is not applicable to the case at bar. On April 28. 529. with petitioner attributing to the NLRC the commission of the following alleged errors. 1981. the Sheriff who served the writ submitted a report to the Board.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. this instant petition for certiorari. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 79 . The respondent NLRC erred in recognizing a clearly illegal decision. namely.000. represented by wife. 529 makes it unlawful to require payment of domestic obligations in foreign currency. NORMA S. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND BRIGIDO SAMSON. and that because of said payment. No. 1985 PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND BRIGIDO SAMSON. J. Issue: Whether or not the respondent was in violation of R. the petition in this case is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.00 to private respondent herein which the latter accepted and evidenced by a voucher and a "Release" document dated May 7. Held: No." WHEREFORE. 1981 and which led to the Writ of Execution protested to by petitioner. the corresponding writ of execution was issued and served on petitioner. 1981. No. L-63535 May 27. After the said decision reached finality. represented by wife. Hence. Facts: The case at bar stems from a claim for disability compensation benefits and hospitalization expenses under employment contract. SAMSON G. against the petitioner before the National Seaman's Board (NSB). filed by private respondent herein. will readily disclose that the award to the private respondent does not compel payment in dollar currency but in fact expressly allows payment of "its equivalent in Philippine currency. because said decision orders payment in the dollar standard in violation of law.A. SAMSON Alampay. NORMA S. A careful reading of the decision rendered by the Executive Director of the NSB dated April 2. Republic Act No. the appealed decision was affirmed by the NLRC.

1990 HORTENCIA SALAZAR HON. Marquez. the team chanced upon twelve talent performers — practicing a dance number and saw about twenty more waiting outside. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 80 . Flora Salazar. There it was found that petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio. Jovencio Abara and Atty. We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor. Mrs. Flora Salazar informed the team that Hannalie Dance Studio was accredited with Moreman Development (Phil. Issue: Whether or not the POEA had jurisdiction to validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code. The team confiscated assorted costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. TOMAS D. when required to show credentials. not being a judge. Estelita B. 1988 POEA Director on Licensing and Regulation Atty. in a sworn statement filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration charged petitioner Hortencia Salazar with illegal recruitment. the group assisted by Mandaluyong policemen and mediamen Lito Castillo of the People's Journal and Ernie Baluyot of News Today proceeded to the residence of the petitioner at 615 R. However. Facts: On October 21. ACHACOSO. in his capacity as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. and FERDIE MARQUEZ Sarmiento.. 1205. Article 38. TOMAS D. Held: No. On January 26. may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: HORTENCIA SALAZAR VS HON. the team served said Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. she was unable to produce any. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. No. Hence. in his capacity as Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Mandaluyong.). paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void.O. Ernesto Vistro as members of a team tasked to implement Closure and Seizure Order No. Metro Manila. 1205. 1987. Pasay City. J. Doing so. WHEREFORE. the petition is GRANTED. Santos St. ACHACOSO. Atty. Before entering the place. and FERDIE MARQUEZ G. Leveriza.R.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. Inside the studio. Rosalie Tesoro of 177 Tupaz Street. Espiritu issued an office order designating respondents Atty. the authorities must go through the judicial process. 81510 March 14. Flora Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No.

or holder of authority to substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor. No. This was followed by an ex-parte motion for leave to file third party complaint on June 4. entity. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: SEAGULL MARITIME CORP.00 as provided for in the contract of employment but his claim was denied for having been submitted to the insurers beyond the designated period for doing so. Issue: Whether or not the respondent committed prohibited acts by altering or substituting employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor. 1987 by Seagull. licensee. On August 19. he was repatriated to the Philippines and was hospitalized at the Makati Medical Center from October 23. BALATONGAN. 82252 February 28."Balatongan demanded payment for his claim for total disability insurance in the amount of US $ 50. BALATONGAN. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION G. J. Later. Seagull filed on April 28.000. Held: Yes. Seagull and Philimare appealed said decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on June 4. 1986. 1983 to March 27.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. 1984. Egypt as a result of which he was hospitalized at the Suez Canal Authority Hospital. 1985 the medical certificate was issued describing his disability as "permanent in nature. Facts: On October 6. 1987 a Motion For Substitution/Inclusion of Party Respondent which was opposed by Balatongan.R. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION GANCAYCO. The supplementary contract of employment was entered into between petitioner and private respondent to modify the original contract of employment The reason why the law requires that the POEA should approve and verify a contract under Article 34 of the Labor Code is to insure that the employee shall not thereby be placed in a disadvantageous position and that the same are within the minimum standards of the terms and conditions of such employment contract set by the POEA. AND PHILIMARE SHIPPING & EQUIPMENT SUPPLY NERRY D. it shall be unlawful for any individual. Pending resolution of their appeal because of the alleged transfer of the agency of Seagull to Southeast Asia Shipping Corporation. 1989 SEAGULL MARITIME CORP. 1983 Balatongan met an accident in the Suez Canal. AND PHILIMARE SHIPPING & EQUIPMENT SUPPLY VS NERRY D. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 81 .

S. and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 82 . 78409 September 14. KNUT KNUTSEN O. KNUT KNUTSEN O.A.. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: NORBERTO SORIANO VS OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION. 1989 NORBERTO SORIANO OFFSHORE SHIPPING AND MANNING CORPORATION.A. and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) G.S..R.

exceptions from the coverage of a statute are strictly construed. In the case at bar. In the Philippines. J. was held to be unreasonable and unjust.00.00 contending therein that private respondent unilaterally altered the employment contract by reducing his salary of US$800. both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission correctly analyzed the questioned annotations as not constituting an alteration of the original employment contract but only a clarification thereof which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered a violation of the above-quoted law. through its authorized shipping agent in the Philippines.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ponente: Fernan. Hence. overtime pay. As evidenced by the Crew Agreement. 1985 and refund of his return airfare and cash bond allegedly in the amount of P20. petitioner filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. although they did not materially change the terms and conditions of the original letter of credit. Under similar circumstances. Petitioner was made to shoulder his return airfare to Manila. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 83 .00.00 to US$560. a licensed Second Marine Engineer. a complaint against private respondent for payment of salary differential. sought employment and was hired by private respondent Knut Knutsen O. C. while it appears that petitioner joined the aforesaid vessel on July 23.00 per month to US$560.000. Thus. to rule out from the exemption amendments set forth. There is no dispute that an alteration of the employment contract without the approval of the Department of Labor is a serious violation of law. Issue: Whether or not the respondent committed prohibited acts by altering or substituting employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor. But such construction nevertheless must be at all times reasonable. Held: Yes. Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation.S. Facts: In search for better opportunities and higher income. petitioner Norberto Soriano.A. He admitted that the term of the contract was extended to six (6) months by mutual agreement on the promise of the employer to the petitioner that he will be promoted to Second Engineer.00 a month on a conduction basis for a period of fifteen (15) days. 1985 due to the alleged failure of private respondent-employer to fulfill its promise to promote petitioner to the position of Second Engineer and for the unilateral decision to reduce petitioner's basic salary from US$800. causing him to request for his repatriation to the Philippines. this Court ruled that as a general proposition. and not in accord with the declared purpose of the Margin Law. petitioner was hired to work as Third Marine Engineer on board Knut Provider" with a salary of US$800. 1985 he signed off on November 27. unpaid salary for November. sensible and fair.

ANTONIO TANEDO. and the dismissal of the criminal cases against the petitioners. JR. for failure of the petitioners to return the overpayments made to them upon demand by the former. CATALINO CASICA. AMORSOLO CABRERA. EDUARDO PAGTALUNAN. G. Ponente: GUTIERREZ. ISIDRO BRACIA. ANTONIO MIRANDA.. RAMON DE BELEN. RAYMUNDO PEREZ. CATALINO CASICA. EDUARDO PAGTALUNAN. The petitioners were ordered to reimburse the total amount of US$91. RAMON UNIANA. No. RAYMUNDO PEREZ. DOMINADOR SANTOS. 57999 and 58143-53. 1989 RESURRECCION SUZARA. ROMEO HUERTO and WILFREDO CRISTOBAL VS THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Nos. INC. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 84 . ERNESTO SABADO. ANGELITO MENDOZA. INC. the NSB ruled that the petitioners are not entitled to the wage differentials as determined by the ITF because the means employed by them in obtaining the same were violent and illegal and because in demanding higher wages the petitioners sought the aid of a third party. THE NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD (now the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration). RAMON DE BELEN. The criminal cases were eventually consolidated in the sala of then respondent Judge Alfredo Benipayo. and MAGSAYSAY LINES. VITALIANO PANGUE. DOMINADOR SANTOS. CESAR DIMAANDAL. filed estafa charges against some of the petitioners. THE NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD (now the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration). MARTIN MALABANAN. the payment of wages over and above their contracted rates without the approval of the NSB. in turn. AMORSOLO CABRERA. J Facts: The cases at bar involve a group of Filipino seamen who were declared by the defunct National Seamen Board (NSB) guilty of breaching their employment contracts with the private respondent because they demanded. ROMEO HUERTO and WILFREDO CRISTOBAL THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. ISIDRO BRACIA.44 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency representing the said over-payments and to be suspended from the NSB registry for a period of three years. intervened in their behalf and prohibited the vessel from sailing unless the owner and/or operator of the vessel acceded to respondents' demand for higher wages. these consolidated petitions. ANTONIO MIRANDA. In arriving at the questioned decision. Banico 2011-0148 Case title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: RESURRECCION SUZARA. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the NSB. G. MARTIN MALABANAN. Hence. VITALIANO PANGUE.R. the private respondent. ERNESTO SABADO. which. RAMON UNIANA.R. CESAR DIMAANDAL. which respectively pray for the nullification of the decisions of the NLRC and the NSB.R. the International Transport Worker's Federation (ITF). In a corollary development.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jose Mari R. ANTONIO TANEDO. L-64781-99 August 15. and MAGSAYSAY LINES. Nos. upon the intervention and assistance of a third party.348. 64781-99 and G. ANGELITO MENDOZA.

WHEREFORE. Nos.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Issue: Whether or not the NSB and NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding the petitioners guilty of using intimidation and illegal means in breaching their contracts of employment and punishing them for these alleged offenses. Canada. 1978 to December 14. the petitions are hereby GRANTED. R. The decisions of the National Seamen Board and National Labor Relations Commission in G. 1978 according to the rates in the Special Agreement that the parties entered into in Vancouver. The private respondent is ordered to pay the petitioners their earned but unpaid wages and overtime pay/allowance from November 1. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 85 . 64781-99 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered holding the petitioners not guilty of the offenses for which they were charged. The petitioners' suspension from the National Seamen Board's Registry for three (3) years is LIFTED. Held: Yes.

which contained a provision empowering it to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the foreign principal for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of employment. NACIONALES G. Held: Yes. petitioner concludes. Service agreement was executed by private respondent and ZAMEL whereby the former was to receive per month a salary of US$500.00 as allowance for a period of one year commencing from the date of his arrival in Saudi Arabia. Therefore. which either provides for the "third-party liability" of an employment agency or recruiting entity for violations of an employment agreement performed abroad. Cortes RELATIONS Facts: Petitioner. In applying for its license to operate a private employment agency for overseas recruitment and placement. the foreign-based employer. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. 1984. Petitioner was required as well to post such cash and surety bonds as determined by the Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance with prescribed recruitment procedures.R.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. and terms and conditions of employment as appropriate. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 86 . Private respondent then filed a complaint for illegal termination against Petitioner Royal Crown Internationale and ZAMEL with the POEA. No. for all claims filed by recruited workers which may arise in connection with the implementation of the service agreements or employment contracts. For three successive days thereafter. These contractual undertakings constitute the legal basis for holding petitioner. rules and regulations. liable jointly and severally with its principal. if any. he was made to board a plane bound for the Philippines. Petitioner conveniently overlooks the fact that it had voluntarily assumed solidary liability under the various contractual undertakings it submitted to the Bureau of Employment Services. It was also required to file with the Bureau a formal appointment or agency contract executed by the foreign-based employer in its favor to recruit and hire personnel for the former. or designates it as the agent of the foreign-based employer for purposes of enforcing against the latter claims arising out of an employment agreement. and other private employment or recruitment agencies. Nacionales J. petitioner was required to submit. 78085 October 16. or the omnibus rules implementing the same.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: ROYAL CROWN INTERNATIONALE VS. No. NATIONAL LABOR COMMISSI0N and VIRGILIO P. a document or verified undertaking whereby it assumed all responsibilities for the proper use of its license and the implementation of the contracts of employment with the workers it recruited and deployed for overseas employment.R. a duly licensed private employment agency. among others. recruited and deployed private respondent Virgilio for employment with ZAMEL as an architectural draftsman in Saudi Arabia. ZAMEL terminated the employment of private respondent on the ground that his performance was below par. of private respondent's service agreement. it cannot be held jointly and severally liable with ZAMEL for violations. On February 16. However. Petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Labor Code. he was detained at his quarters and was not allowed to report to work until his exit papers were ready. 1989 Royal Crown Internationale National Labor Relations Commission and Virgilio P.00 plus US$100. Issue: Whether or not petitioner as a private employment agency may be held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-based employer for any claim which may arise in connection with the implementation of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and deployed abroad.

if a foreign corporation. J. L-38649 March 26.R. on certiorari. Indeed. Petitioner alleged that he was employed by respondents as. it could not be sued in the country. from securing redress in the Philippine courts. 1965 to August. a fortiori. 1966. 1979 Facilities Management Corporation. is not banned from seeking redress from courts in the Philippines. Held: Yes. the petitioner contended that because it was domiciled outside and not doing business in Philippines.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 87 . V. and J. not engaged in business in the Philippines.R. The petitioner. DREYER. S. LEONARDO DE LA ROSA AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS G. but to prevent it from acquiring a domicile for the purpose of business without taking the steps necessary to render it amenable to suit in the local courts. houseboy and cashier. as well as the recovery of his overtime compensation. It was never the purpose of the Legislature to exclude a foreign corporation which happens to obtain an isolated order for business from the Philippines. Makasiar Facts: Leonardo dela Osa sought his reinstatement. V. He further averred that from December. he rendered overtime services daily and that this entire period was divided into swing and graveyard shifts to which he was assigned. CATUIRA. swing shift and graveyard shift differentials. painter. Catuira. VS. However. the object of Sections 68 and 69 of the Corporation Law was not to prevent the foreign corporation from performing single acts. inclusive. a foreign corporation domiciled outside the Philippines was ordered by CIR then to pay the unpaid overtime and premium pay. S. Dreyer and J. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. but he was not paid both overtime and night shift premiums despite his repeated demands from respondents. with full backwages. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. Issue: Whether or not petitioner has been doing business in the Philippines so that the service of summons upon its agent in the Philippines vested the Court of First Instance of Manila with jurisdiction. J. that same corporation cannot claim exemption from being sued in Philippine courts for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines. Leonardo De La Rosa and the Honorable Court of Industrial Relation J. No.

As a mere employee. UtkalChowdury. Moreover. The compalinants also averred that during their applications for employment for abroad. he only followed the instructions given by his superiors. licensed to recruit overseas workers. was duly authorized by his agency to deal with the applicants in its behalf. together with his employer. Evidence shows that accused –appellant interviewed private complainant in 1994 at Craftrade’s office. Mr. Emmanuel Geslani. No. he was an interviewer of Craftrade which was operating under temporary authority given by POEA pending the renewal of license. Calleja. 15. if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. In this case. BULU CHOWDURY G. The prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant is conscious and has an active participation in the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. His primary duty was to interview job applicants for abroad. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation. Puno Facts: BuluChowdury was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale by recruiting Estrella B. in turn. 129577-80 Feb. Melvin C. Sasis for employment in Korea. Accused-appellant in fact confined his actions to his job description. Chowdury did not knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of illegal recruitment being merely performing his task and unaware of illegality of recruitment. accusedappellant was not aware of Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA and the prosecution failed to prove that he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. The obligation to register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. At that time. an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal. Chowdury merely performed his tasks under the supervision of its president and managing director. and Mr. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 88 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged. 2000 Bulu Chowdury People of the Philippines J. He was charged based on the fact that he was not registered with the POEA as employee of Craftrade and he is not in his personal capacity. No. the agency's Managing Director.R. Held: No. the license of Craftrade was already expired. The accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing that the agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he. the agency's President and General Manager.R.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. For his defense Chowdury testified that he worked as interviewer at Craftrade from 1990 until 1994. Miranda and Aser S. He merely interviewed the applicants and informed them of the requirements for deployment but he never received money from them.

her duties only included processing other applications for job placement and entertaining applicants. Thus. Nancy Oidi. as evidenced by a certification from the POEA and the testimony of a representative of said government agency. Held: Yes. Florentino Balanon. No. She alleged that she was hired as an employee and as such employee. that she received payments from complainants. The accused was indicted for illegal recruitment and estafa. Convinced. No. all the requisite of illegal recruitment are present. Accused Cabais denied involvement in the recruitment of complainants. and considering that she admittedly had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. However. Her acts constituted recruitment. though. evidenced by receipts signed by accused Cabais. but alleged that she was merely acting upon the instruction of Forneas and that she turned over all the payments to her employer. Despite the fact that she was just an ordinary employee of the company.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. She even presented some persons to influence them. claiming that it was her boss who was doing recruitment activities. several months passed and they were not deployed as promised.R. and Imelda Mortera on different occasions. accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment. NELLIE CABAIS y GAMUELA G. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 89 . Complainants checked with the office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) in Baguio and learned that Nellie Cabais was not licensed to recruit in Baguio or in any part of the Cordillera Administrative Region. She also received money from them as placement fees. the complainants complied with requirement and paid all the needed amounts. accused-appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants. Furthermore. Pardo Facts: Accused-appellant Nellie Cabais met the complainants Joan Merante. They were told that the accused-appellant was a legal recruiter working with a licensed recruitment agency based in Manila. After complying with all the requirements. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. persuading them to be contract workers in South Korea. Complainants parted with their money. 2001 Nellie Cabais y Gamuela People of the Philippines J. Jr. They waited and repeatedly inquired about the status of their applications. complainants were told to wait for their deployment. Since the recruitment involves three or more persons. 129070 March 16. accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale. She admitted. Accused-appellant was the one who informed complainants of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. accused Cabais denied all the charges against her.R. She talked to complainants several times during the period of February 1994 up to May 1994. In this case. accused-appellant did not possess any license to engage in recruitment activities. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant Accused-appellant Cabais is guilty of illegal recruitment committed in large scale.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. her criminal liability would still stand for being a conspirator with the corporate officers in undertaking illegal recruitment activities. For her part.

complainants went to the Baler Police Station 2 in Quezon City on November 11. 1994 to file their complaints for illegal recruitment and estafa against accused-appellant and other people who helped in recruitment with the accused. and collected moneys from them. 138535-38 April 19. under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. Mendoza Facts: Accussed-appellant was charged and convicted before regional trial court of illegal recruitment and estafa. No. placement officer." which is defined as the act of passing along or forwarding an applicant for employment after initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer. Realizing that they had been deceived. They were assured of the employment and that they will be informed of the developments. All she did was to refer the complainants to other persons who were the real recruiters. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G.R. even promising them jobs as seamen. 1994.R. No.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. complainants went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and discovered that accused-appellant and her companions did not have any license or authority to engage in any recruitment activity. Held: Yes.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. Ronald Frederizo and Larry Tibor testified that the accused-appellants are recruiting for seaman to work abroad. They paid the needed payments for the processing of their applications but no receipts were issued upon them. Accused-appellant denied having promised complainants overseas employment and having collected money from them. 2001 Luz Gonzales-Flores People of the Philippines J. recruitment includes "referral. Issue: Whether or not referral made by accused-appellant would constitute of illegal recruitment in large scale. On November 14. In these cases. There was also conspiracy among accused-appellant and other recruiters who used fraudulent means and under pretense of legal recruiters in recruiting complainants for employment overseas. or bureau.. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 90 . accusedappellant did more than just make referrals. LUZ GONZALES-FLORES G. She actively and directly enlisted complainants for supposed employment abroad. Jr. Complainants Felixberto Leongson. The complainant followed up their application but each they were told to be patient.

29. constituting a promise of employment which amounted to recruitment as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. From the testimonies of the priv ate complainants. the accused denied having received money from them. 124671-75 Sep. The accused representations to the private complainants that she could send them to Korea to work as factory workers. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more person. She claimed that they came to her voluntarily after being informed that she was able to send her three (3) sons to Korea. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. They then inquired at the Baguio POEA office whether the accused was a license recruiter to which they receive certification that the accused was not a license recruiter. Pardo Facts: Accused Linda Sagayado was convicted before the regional trial court of illegal recruitment in large scale and fur charges of estafa. individually or as a group. Gina and Naty were not able to leave because the Korean government imposed a visa requirement beginning January.” All the requisites are present in this case. individually or as a group. the accused denied having recruited any of the private complainants. Rogelio Tebeb. the record showed that accused-appellant did not have the authority to recruit for employment abroad as the certification issued by the POEA in Baguio City. and (3) committed the infraction against three or more persons. As against the positiv e and categorical testimonies of the complainants. In her defense. With respect to complainants Jessie Bolinao and Rogelio Tibeb. months have passed but their flight never pushed through. They were assured of their flight and of employment abroad. When asked why she was not able to return the money of Gina and Naty. 1992.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. (2) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Nata Pita and Jessie Bolinao recounted that the accused Sagayado propsed and encourage them for employment abroad in Korea. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 91 . However. Held: Yes. mere denial of accused cannot prevail. This crime requires proof that the accused: (1 ) engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 or in any of the prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code. accused said that she returned the plane tickets to the Tour Master travel Agency for refund but said agency did not make reimbursements. 2000 Linda Sagaydo People of the Philippines J. Complainants gave their respective payments to the accused for the processing of their travel papers and passport. No. As to the license requirement.R. LINDA SAGAYDO G. there is no denying that accused gav e the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work such that the latter were conv inced to part with their money in order to be employed. No. Complainants Gina Cleto.R. she said she used their money to buy their plane tickets. While accused admitted having received money from complainants Gina Cleto and Naty Pita.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

He f urther claimed that his signatures on the receipt were f orged and he merely suggested to the complainants employment abroad . No. Mendoza Facts: The regional trial court convicted accused Benson Ong of illegal recruitment and sev en charges of estaf a f or promising employment abroad to the f ollowing: 1. 18. particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers. 8. Solidad M. The NBI conf irmed f rom the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Regional Extension Unit (POEA-REU) in the Cordillera Autonomous Region that accused had not been licensed to recruit for overseas employment.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. Some of them voluntarily sought the help of the accused believ ing that he is a legal and licensed recruiter.R.Teofilo S.Sally Kamura.David Joaquin. individually or as a group. Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.Jr. No. 6. Complainants sought help to the NBI about the recruitment activi ties of the accused. 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Art. 5. Gallao. and 9. Held: The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Art. Malinias The abov e complainants recounted that t he accused encourage them f or employment abroad. 2. 119594 Jan. 4. the accused denied the charges and f or collecting f ees f rom them. and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons. (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. either locally or overseas. 1994.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. 3. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. For his part. Accused nev er f ulfilled his promise.Francisca Cayaya. On June 27. BENZONG ONG y SATE G.Samuel Bagni.Noel Bacasnot Baldivino.Paul G. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 92 .Ruth A Eliw. 7.R. Esteban. They paid the placement f ees and were assured f or employment abroad upon completion of their papers.. 34 of the Labor Code. a team composed of NBI and special inv estigators conducted an entrapment operation which led to the arrest of the accused. 2000 Benzong Ong y Sate People of the Philippines J.

Indeed. Even if accused-appellant did no more than "suggest" to complainants where they could apply for overseas employment. Clearly. He was not also authorized to recruit workers abroad as he has not been licensed by the POEA and he illegally recruited more than three persons. Accused represented himself to complainants as one capable of deploying workers abroad and even quoted the alleged salary rates of factory and construction workers in Taiwan. his act constituted "referral" within the meaning of Art.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION All the requi sites of Illegal recruitment in large scale are present in this case. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 93 .13 (b) of the Labor Code. The evidence shows that he made misrepresentations to them concerning his authority to recruit for overseas employment and collected various amounts from them for placement fees. the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record shows that accused-appellant did more than just make referrals. accused-appellant committed acts constitutive of large scale illegal recruitment.

R.S Guest Hotel. (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Appellant admitted this fact himself.C Business Agency and offered to them employment in Italy. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment committed in large scale. Firstly. The accused was glib and persuasive that they were lured to give payment for the processing of their application for work in Italy. REYDANTE CALONZO Y AMBROSIO G. 115150Sep. Neither did he have any arrangements in Bangkok for the transfer of his recruits to Italy.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C.A. Elmer Clamor. Business Agency was licensed to recruit workers for employment abroad. However. The complainants recounted that they met the accused-appellant who was then employed in R. Belarmino Torregrosa and Hazel de Paula. While in Bangkok. Upon return to the Philippines. No. As for his part.C Business Agency were not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. To top it all. Thirdly. he brought them to Bangkok and not to Italy.A." The above requisites to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale are present in this case. No. Bellosillo Facts: Reydante Calonzo Y ambrosio was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and 5 counts of estafa by Brenando Miranda. 27. he deluded complainants into believing that jobs awaited them in Italy by distinctly impressing upon them that he had the facility to send them for work abroad. POEA likewise certified that neither Calonzo nor R. 1996 Reydante Calonzo Y Ambrosio People of the Philippines J.R.A. they only remain in Bangkok and the promise of employment in Italy was not fulfilled. and (c) commits the same against three or more persons. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 94 .C. the complainants again gave additional amounts to the accused. Danilo de los Reyes. Held: Yes. Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person "(a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. accused-appellant denies involvement in any recruitment activities. The accusedappellant was able to send the complainants to Bangkok and were brought to P. He even showed them his passport to lend credence to his claim. appellant recruited five (5) workers thus making the crime illegal recruitment in large scale constituting economic sabotage.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. Secondly. the testimony of complainants evidently showed that Calonzo was engaged in recruitment activities in large scale. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. individually or as a group. the complainants verified from POEA to which the latter issued a certification that the accused and R.

These agreements were reduced into a document but the accused spouse never complies with their obligations. together with Francisco Hernandez. and YOLANDA GUTIERREZ DE REICHL.R. spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl. Complainants then were introduced by Hernandez to spouse Reichl who in turn promised them for employment abroad. Melanie Bautista Annaliza Perez. the spouse denied any of involvement of Hernandez's recruitment and their knowledge of promises for overseas employment. Anicel Umahon and Charito Balmes have their own similar stories about the illegal recruitment conducted by the accused-appellants. They further contended that they cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale as the several information were only filed by single complainant.: Date: Petitioners: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. eight informations for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment and eight informations for estafa were filed against accused-appellants. Edwin Coling. No. Karl Reichl and Yolanda Gutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities were neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. Only the Reichl spouses were tried and convicted by the trial court as Francisco Hernandez remained at large. Estela Abel de Manalo. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (at large). 2002 Karl Reichl and Yolanda Gutierrez De Reichl People of the Philippines J. As for their part. The promises of employment however did not pushed through and the complainants remained in the Phillippines. Leonora Perez. KARL REICHL. The complainants namely. Upon demands. G. 141221-36 March 7. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. Narcisa Autor de Hernandez. No. the accused spouse promise them to refund the payment if their employments never materialized. Accused Hernandez asked for the payment for the processing of their papers. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellants were guilty of syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment. They recounted that accused Hernandez was the one convincing each of them to apply for employment abroad. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 95 . There was also a certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that Francisco Hernandez. Puno Facts: In April 1993. The spouse issued reciept for the payments made by the complainants. travel documents and visas.R.

However. It has been shown that Karl Reichl. enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Labor Code. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 96 . the accused-appellants are liable for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: They cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale. there is no illegal recruitment in large scale. Thus. Where only one complainant filed individual complaints as in this case. they are guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction. Yolanda Reichl and Francisco Hernandez conspired with each other in convincing private complainants to apply for an overseas job and giving them the guaranty that they would be hired as domestic helpers in Italy although they were not licensed to do so.

120835-40 April 10.. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.R. Padilla Facts: Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias “Tommy Tan” was charged and convicted with illegal recruitment in large scale and 6 counts of estafa before the regional trial court of cavity city. hiring or procuring workers. The promise of employment however did not push through and the complainants decided to file a complaint for illegal recruitment. No.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. Pozas. It is clear that accused-appellant's acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and representing to said applicants that he could get them jobs in Taiwan constitute recruitment and placement under the above provision of the Labor Code. Held: Yes. the accused-appellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale for having recruited six complainants. and includes referrals. The accused was not also licensed by the POEA and thus making him an illegal recruiter. In this case. whether for profit or not. Each of them recounted that they were informed of job employment in Taiwan. Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant was guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as any act of canvassing. No. Edgardo Tolentino and Cavino Asiman have similar stories about the illegal recruitment activities of the accused. locally or abroad. utilizing. They were asked to pay a certain amount for placement and processing fees. Manuel Latina. transporting. Librado C. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 97 . contracting. The transactions happened in certain house of Borja where the accused-appellant assured the complainants of employment at Rainbow Ship Co. in any manner. enlisting. 1997 Tan Tiong Meng People of the Philippines J.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. They later found out that the accused-appellant was not a licensed overseas recruiter.R. Neil Mascardo. The complainants namely: Ernesto Orcullo. TAN TIONG MENG alias "TOMMY TAN" G. Moreover. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. contract services. The accused issued receipts. that any person or entity which. promising or advertising for employment. Provided.

private complainants were not able to leave for Taiwan because appellants told them that the person who was supposed to accompany them to Taiwan did not arrive. the accused-appellants were guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Private complainants asked for the return of their money as they were no longer interested in working abroad. They collected various amounts allegedly for recruitment and placement fees without license or authority to do so. Thus. 138431-36 September 12. passports and bio-data. to appellant Dioscora Arabia.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. However. ARABIA and FRANCISCA L. Arabia.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. did not issue any receipt upon her assurance that she would not fool them. 34 of the Labor Code. No. Teresita Lorenzo.00 for each of them. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 98 . DIOSCORA M. 2001 Dioscoro M. Arabia and Francisca L. Issue: Whether the accused-appellants committed illegal recruitment in large scale. They all saw appellants at Quezon City where the appellants convinced them and other applicants to apply for jobs in Taiwan that would give them a monthly pay. No. TOMAS G.R. he did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers and he committed the same against three or more persons. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. private complainant Pelagia de la Cruz. such as pictures. Held: Large-scale illegal recruitment has the following essential elements:The accused undertook recruitment activity defined under Article 13 or any prohibited practice under Art. Remelyn Jacinto. however.R. however. It is settled that the fact that an accused in an illegal recruitment case did not issue the receipts for amounts received from the complainants has no bearing on his culpability so long as complainants show through their respective testimonies and affidavits that the accused was involved in the prohibited recruitment. Various requirements. These essential elements are present in this case. private complainants Violeta de la Cruz. were submitted also by private complainants. would be P16. Gonzaga-Reyes Facts: In October 1992. The departure date was thus reset but private complainants were still unable to leave. Tomas People of the Philippines J. that appellants were arrested by the NBI and detained at the Quezon City Jail. a recruiter of job applicants for a factory in Taiwan. 000. Rolando Rustia and Noel de la Cruz were introduced by the latter's mother. giving them the impression that they had the capability to send them to Taiwan for employment. Each of the private complainants give certain amount to Arabia at the latter's residence and in the presence of Tomas. Accused-appellants recruited at least four persons. Service fees for processing and placement. individually or as a group. private complainants were told by appellants Arabia and Tomas. Records also showed that appellants were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. They were informed by Arabia's sister.

and that she merely introduced private complainants to a certain Juliet Majestrado who was the one who claimed to have such capacity. Issue: Whether or not the finding of fact made by the trial court can be reviewed on appeal Held: No. ELENA VERANO Y ABANES G. No. Alfonso. medical examination and recruitment fees. Jose Daep. the accused disputed the finding of facts. The issues raised by appellant are purely and indisputably factual. she never represented herself as having the capacity to contract workers for overseas employment.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. which do not apply in the case at bench. Except for a few recognized instances. passports and visas before the supposed flight to Bahrain. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. accused-appellant Elena Verano persuaded the three private complainants.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.R. she was sentenced for life imprisonment. Arturo Espiel and Alfonso Abanes to accept overseas employment as salesmen in Bahrain. Considering that none of the exceptions apply the court would not be justified in reversing the judgment of conviction. No. and estafa. such findings are bindings and will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court for the latter is not a trier of facts. On appeal. 000. In consideration thereof. The complainants paid the amount which is covered by receipts issued and signed by the accused. She argues that. The complainants then went to the Western Police District Headquarters to lodge their complaint. the accused never showed up and failed to deliver the plain tickets. After trial. 1994 Elena Verano Y Abanes People of the Philippines J. well-settled doctrine that findings of fact made by the trial court are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal. 90017-18 March 1. as she herself admits. visas and the cost of their plane tickets. However. for three times. Arturo and Jose were required to pay P10.00 each to cover the expenses for the processing of their passports. Accusedappellant was arrested on the same day and charged with illegal recruitment committed in large scale. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 99 . Bellosillo Facts: Sometime in October 1987.R.

No. Proc. INC. NEWTON JISON. TOLENTINO and PLANTERS' COMMITTEE. Held: No. Joker Arroyo.o. 79310 July 14.R. No.O. PAULINO D.O. The said measures were issued by President Aquino before July 27. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Kenneth Yves C. ARSENIO AL. Newton Jison. Cruz Facts: The petitioners are landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill District. No. Victorias. Dennis Jereza. she could do so only to enact emergency measures during the transition period. Proc. No. 229. Neither is it correct to say that these measures ceased to be valid when she lost her legislative power for. 229 would still have to be annulled for violating the constitutional provisions on just compensation. they continue to be in force unless modified or repealed by subsequent law or declared invalid by the courts. Inc. even assuming that the interim legislative power of the President was properly exercised. No. Philip E. 131 and E. 228 and 229. No. No.O. the same was authorized under Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. VICTORINO FERRARIS.O. were both issued on July 22. 1987. and equal protection. No. 1987. A statute does not ipso facto become inoperative simply because of the dissolution of the legislature that enacted it.R. Negros Occidental and organization composed of 1. 131 and E. They are not "midnight" enactments intended to pre-empt the legislature because measures Proc. PHILIP E. 131 and E. At that. Bergantin 2011-0050 Case Title: G. Victorino Ferarris. ACUNA.D. Paulino D. By the same token. the power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. No. due process. Juico and Presidential Agrarian Reform J. 229 were issued by President Corazon Aquino to institute comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP) to uphold the P. Issue: Whether or not the Proc. G. 27 which provides for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners. No. Nos. Herminigildo Gustilo. DENNIS JEREZA. 229 are unconstitutional. President Aquino's loss of legislative power did not have the effect of invalidating all the measures enacted by her when and as long as she possessed it. when the Congress of the Philippines was formally convened and took over legislative power from her. Although they agree that the President could exercise legislative power until the Congress was convened. JUICO and PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VS. Tolentino and Planters’ Committee. HERMINIGILDO GUSTILO. No.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: JOKER ARROYO.400 planter-members which seeks to prohibit the implementation of Proc. 131 and E. 131 and E. No. 1989 Arsenio Al. Acuna.O. like any statute. 229. No. 131 and E. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 100 . The petitioners claim that the power to provide for a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs to Congress and not the President.

The court held in their decisions that the elements of an employer-employee relationship are: (1) selection and engagement of the employee. (3) power of dismissal. FACTS: Luis S. 1994 AIR MATERIAL WING SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION. 
vs. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. refund of SSS premiums. the petitioner reserved its power of dismissal for cause or as it might deem necessary for its interest and protection. ISSUE: Whether or not employer-employee relationship exist in the case at bar? HELD: Yes. and attorney's fees. vacation and sick leave benefits. His selection as the company counsel was done by the board of directors in one of its regular meetings. Salas was appointed "notarial and legal counsel" for petitioner Air Material Wings Savings and Loan Association (AMWSLAI) in 1980. moral and exemplary damages. and attorney's fee equivalent to 10% of the judgment award. No. 1980 to March 2. This prompted Salas to lodge a complaint against AMWSLAI for separation pay. JUSTICE CRUZ. In the case at bar the terms and conditions set out in the letter-contract entered into by the parties on January 23. cost of living allowances. et al. petitioner..LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. Which can be substantiated in the present case.R.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. The existence of such a relationship is essentially a factual question. Though his appointment was for a fixed term of three years. AMWSLAI was ordered to pay Salas his notarial fees from 1987 up to March 2. ponente. payment of notarial services rendered from February 1. clearly show that Salas was an employee of the petitioner.. 1990. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 101 . INC. 1990. AMWSLAI moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. and (4) employer's own power to control employee's conduct. No less importantly. respondents. It averred that there was no employeremployee relationship between them and that his monetary claims properly fell within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. The decision affirmed in toto by the Commission prompted Air Material Wings Savings and Loan Association (AMWSLAI) to seek relief in the court. AMWSLAI also exercised its power of control over Salas by defining his duties and functions as its legal counsel. 1987. The petitioner paid him a monthly compensation/retainer's fee for his services. (2) payment of wages. Salas opposed the motion and presented documentary evidence to show that he was indeed an employee of AMWSLAI. 111870 June 30. AMWSLAI issued order reminding Salas of the approaching termination of his legal services under their contract.

Almodiel is a certified public accountant who was hired as Cost Accounting Manager of Raytheon Philippines. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 102 .. a permanent resident born in this country. petitioner. Almodiel was told of the abolition of his position on the ground of redundancy. On appeal. Raytheon insists that Almodiel's functions and duties had not been absorbed by Ang Tan Chai. ISSUE: Whether or not the Raytheon Phils.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. J. he does not fall within the ambit of the provision.R. Since Ang Tan Chai is a resident alien. he was regularized. He started as a probationary or temporary employee. As a consequence. No. The employment permit is required for entry into the country for employment purposes and is issued after determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent. Thus. Raytheon adopted and installed a new cost accounting system in their operation which Raytheon plants and subsidiaries worldwide used. Unsatisfied. able and willing at the time of application to perform the services for which the alien is desired.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION).. Inc. respondents. NOCON.The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor declaring that complainant's termination on the ground of redundancy is highly irregular and without legal and factual basis. Inc. constrained him to file the complaint for illegal dismissal. because they are occupying entirely different and distinct positions requiring different sets of expertise or qualifications and discharging functions altogether different and foreign from that of petitioner's abolished position. RAYTHEON PHILS. 
vs. 100641 June 14. Almodiel filed the instant petition averring that the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to or in excess of jurisdiction in declaring as valid and justified the termination of Almodiel on the ground of redundancy. a resident alien without any working permit from the Department of Labor and Employment as required by law. NLRC reversed the decision and directed Raytheon to pay petitioner separation pay/financial assistance.. the submission of periodic reports was no longer needed. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. 40 of the Labor Code in employing a resident alien without a working permit? HELD: No. ALMODIEL. 1993 FARLE P. INC. Article 40 of the Labor Code which requires employment permit of no-resident alien . violates Art. Almodiel claims that the functions of his position were absorbed by the Payroll/Mis/Finance Department under the management of Danny Ang Tan Chai. After a few months.: FACTS: Farle P.

There is none in the instant case. all elements of employment. The Labor Code and its implementing Rules do not vest in the Labor Arbiters nor in the different Divisions of the NLRC (nor in the courts) managerial authority. the Court cannot substitute its discretion and judgment for that which is clearly and exclusively management prerogative. using his own discretion and business judgment. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 103 . To do so would take away from the employer what rightly belongs to him as aptly explained in National Federation of Labor Unions v. NLRC. since petitioner does not allege that Ang Tan Chai does not qualify for the position. The determination of the qualification and fitness of workers for hiring and firing.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION In the case at bar. The employer is free to determine. it is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not authorize interference with the employer's judgment in the conduct of his business. Further. "from hiring to firing" except in cases of unlawful discrimination or those which may be provided by law. promotion or reassignment are exclusive prerogatives of management.

Respondent submitted his resignation letter containing the reasons of his decision “. ROGELIO and BENJAMIN LIMJOCO. 87098 November 4.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. No. J.. The court did not agree with the ruling of NLRC that there existed an employer-employee relationship and petitioner failed to disprove this finding. received commissions therefrom. Limjoco resigned from office to pursue his private business. financed the business expenses.. INC.: FACTS: Benjamin Limjoco was a Sales Division Manager of Encyclopaedia Britannica and was in charge of selling the latter's products through some sales representatives and also allowed to use Encyclopaedia Britannica's name. and sales representatives were chargeable to his commissions. utility man. JR. That. there was no employer-employee relationship. ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employee-employer relationship in the case at bar? HELD: No. His salary and his income was dependent on the volume of sales accomplished. HON.R. LABOR ARBITER TEODORICO L.. The latter did not even report to the office of the Britannica and did not observe fixed office hours. vs. Limjoco had his own separate office. Britannica will be informed about appointments. he was under the supervision of the Britannica's officials who issued to him and his other personnel. As agreed upon he will receive commissions from the product sold by his agent less office expenses from Limjoco's commissions. and maintained his own workforce. and transfers of employees in Limjoco's district. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 104 . 1996 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (PHILIPPINES). memoranda. guidelines on company policies... respondents. TORRES. The salaries of his secretary.” Encyclopaedia Britannica alleged that Limjoco was not its employee but an independent dealer authorized to promote and sell its products and in return.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.. promotions. instructions and other orders. After a year Limjoco filed a claim for his benefits and was granted by Labor Arbiter on appeal to NLRC which affirmed the decision prompting the petition for certiorari. petitioner. Britannica argued that it had no control and supervision over the complainant as to the manner and means he conducted his business operations..was brought about by conflict with other interests which lately have increasingly required my personal attention. Consequently. BRACAMONTE
 2011-0152
 G. goodwill and logo.

In fine. control of employee's conduct is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship. there is nothing in the records to show or would "indicate that complainant was under the control of the petitioner" in respect of the means and methods in the performance of complainant's work. Of the above. The records of the case at bar showed that there was no such employer-employee relationship. In ascertaining whether the relationship is that of employer-employee or one of independent contractor. and maintained their own staff. have increasingly required my personal attention". The different memoranda were merely guidelines on company policies which the sales managers follow and impose on their respective agents. private respondent was also a director and later the president of the Farmers' Rural Bank. Consequently. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 105 . The periodic reports to the petitioner by the agents were but necessary to update the company of the latter's performance and business income and he had to notify the petitioner about such appointments for purpose of deducting the employees' salaries from his commissions. private respondent Limjoco and the other agents were free to conduct and promote their sales operations. it was rather unusual for him to wait for more than a year from his separation from work before he decided to file his claims. private respondent is not entitled to the benefits prayed for. he could not be employed elsewhere and he would be required to devote full time for petitioner. If private respondent was indeed an employee. It should be noted that in petitioner's business of selling encyclopedias and books. we should not find that the relationship of employer and employee exists. there was a need for the petitioner to issue memoranda to private respondent so that the latter would be apprised of the company policies and procedures. and in turn is compensated according to the result of his efforts and not the amount thereof. but also the manner and means to used in reaching that end. Evidently. the marketing of these products was done through dealership agreements. it would indicate that petitioner has no effective control over the personal activities of Limjoco. At the very least. Thus. .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship the following elements must be present: 1) selection and engagement of the employee. . an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved. 2) payment of wages. Limjoco was aware of "conflict with other interests which . Had he been an employee of the company. Nevertheless. and 4) the power to control the employee's conduct. The fact that petitioner issued memoranda to private respondents and to other division sales managers did not prove that petitioner had actual control over them. financed their own office expenses. At the time he was connected with the petitioner company."the element of control is absent. Under the control test. He was free to conduct his work and he was free to engage in other means of livelihood. 3) power of dismissal. Private respondent was merely an agent or an independent dealer of the petitioner. These independent agents hired their own sales representatives. where a person who works for another does so more or less at his own pleasure and is not subject to definite hours or conditions of work. The sales operations were primarily conducted by independent authorized agents who did not receive regular compensations but only commissions based on the sales of the products. each case must be determined by its own facts and all features of the relationship are to be considered.

ANGELITO AMANCIO. INCIONG. FEDERICO OÑATE. The petitioners first reported for work to Superintendent-in-Charge Camahort. according to the number of cartons and wooden shells they were able to load. they accompanied the company trucks on their delivery routes. ZAMORA. UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR. GENARO OLIVES. unloading.
HON. or pile. airing other grievances such as being paid below the minimum wage law. BOBIAS. CARLOS SUMOYAN. inhuman treatment. GUTIERREZ. The petitioner presented a letter to the respondent company containing proposals and/or labor demands together with a request for recognition and collective bargaining.. respondents. ANTONIO CASBADILLO. VIRGILIO ECHAS. However. AMADO G. and salary deductions made without their consent. The pay check is given to the group leaders for encashment. unload. equipment and paraphernalia used in the loading. HON. NORBERTO GALANG. distribution. they pressed management. No. Camahort give the final approval of report.. being forced to borrow at usurious rates of interest and to buy raffle tickets. The petitioner union filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations in connection with the dismissal of some of its members who were allegedly castigated for their union membership and warned that should they persist in continuing with their union activities they would be dismissed from their jobs. PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS.: FACTS: Petitioners are workers who have been exclusively employed at the San Miguel Parola Glass Factory averaging about seven (7) years of service at the time of their termination. ERNESTO VILLANUEVA. refused to bargain with the petitioner union alleging that the workers are not their employees. The petitioner workers affiliated themselves with the petitioner union and engage in union activities. RONALDO B. They worked as "cargadores" or "pahinante" at the SMC Plant loading. They were issued gate passes signed by Camahort and job orders and were provided with company tools. ET AL. Despite several conciliation conferences. NESTORIO MARCELLANA. ENRIQUE CAMAHORT. JUANITO NAVARRO. Respondent asserts that the petitioners are employees of the Guaranteed Labor Contractor. CACATIAN. their gripes and grievances were not heeded by the respondents. coerced by withholding their salaries. JR.R. L-48645 January 7. ERNESTO BENGSON. At times. 1987 "BROTHERHOOD" LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANTONIO B. DOMINGO PARINAS. J.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. DANILO B. unloading. LAMBERTO RONQUILLO. PROSPERO TABLADA. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 106 . piling and hauling operation. vs. BRACAMONTE
 2011-0152 G. RUFO L. and payment to the petitioners in accordance with payrolls prepared by said leaders. Petitioners were paid every ten (10) days on a piece rate basis. PATRICIO SERRANO. that is. piling or palleting empty bottles and woosen shells to and from company trucks and warehouses. petitioners. MATIAR. TEOFILO B. an independent labor contracting firm. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION. EGUIA. ANTONIO BOCALING and GODOFREDO CUETO.

There is no evidence to show that the alleged labor contractor had such right of control or much less had been there to supervise or deal with the petitioners.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION On February 20. That respondent SMC has the power to recommend penalties or dismissal of the piece workers. Documentary evidence presented by the petitioners establish respondent SMC's right to impose disciplinary measures for violations or infractions of its rules and regulations as well as its right to recommend transfers and dismissals of the piece workers. of the Phils. the evidence strongly indicates the existence of an employeremployee relationship between petitioner workers and respondent San Miguel Corporation. 21 SCRA 924. is the called "control test" that is the most important element (Investment Planning Corp. The court find that Guaranteed and Reliable Labor contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment to qualify as an independent contractor under the law. the elements that are generally considered are the following: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. v. and Rosario Brothers. denied entrance to respondent company's glass factory despite their regularly reporting for work. The petitioners strongly argue that there exists an employer-employee relationship between them and the respondent company and that they were dismissed for unionism. supra. Applying the above criteria. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Inc. Rule VIII. It is only the manpower or labor force which the alleged contractors supply. (b) the payment of wages. v. v. HELD: Yes. The Social Security System. 131 SCRA 72). It. equipment and paraphernalia used by the petitioners in their jobs are admittedly all supplied by respondent company. suggesting the existence of a "labor only" contracting scheme prohibited by law (Article 106. Ople. tools. The inter-office memoranda submitted in evidence prove the company's control over the petitioners. and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 107 . 1969. an act constituting unfair labor practice "for which respondents must be made to answer." ISSUE: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners-members of the "Brotherhood Labor Unit Movement of the Philippines" (BLUM) and respondent San Miguel Corporation. A complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice was filed by the petitioners. Ople. The premises. Section 9(b). 109 of the Labor Code. Book III. thereafter. Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code). Mafinco Trading Corp. (c) the power of dismissal. all the petitioners were dismissed from their jobs and.

The case was submitted for voluntary arbitration and the parties selected Jose T. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. The Commission. In the course of the proceeding. 
vs. in which the company would not interfere. 1988 CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP. that the latter was not an employee of the company. But. a sort of partnership. respondents. unappealable and immediately executory.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. Upon receipt of the decision. wherein Rodito Nasayao was to keep the machinery in good working condition and.R.. a month or 25% of the monthly net income of the company. No. dismissed the appeal on the ground that the decision appealed from is final. L-43825 May 9. Continental Marble Corp. appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission on grounds that the labor arbiter gravely abused his discretion in persisting to hear and decide the case notwithstanding petitioners' request for him to desist therefrom: and that the appealed decision is not supported by evidence. June and July Nasayo filed a complaint with the NLRC.000. Rodito Nasayao filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the decision of the voluntary arbitrator is final. ARBITRATOR JOSE T. denied the claim of Rodito Nasayao. he would get the contracts from end-users for the installation of marble products. and a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. unappealable. the respondent arbitrator refused. PADILLA. Continental Marble Corp. private respondent Nasayao was to receive an amount equivalent to 25% of the net profits that the corporation will earn..00. challenged the arbitrator's capacity to try and decide the case fairly and judiciously and asked him to desist from further hearing the case. ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employee-employer relationship between Rodito Nasayao and Continental Marble Corp. an undertaking agreed upon by the parties as joint venture. and immediately executory. Continental Marble Corp. should there be any.? ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 108 . seek to annul and set aside the decision.. COLLADO and RODITO NASAYAO. petitioner. in return. and FELIPE DAVID. In addition.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC).: FACTS: Rodito Nasayao claimed that he was appointed plant manager of the corporation and receiving a compensation of P3. when the company failed to give his salary for the months of May. which ever is greater. Continental Marble Corp. Collado as voluntary arbitrator. J. Later a judgement was rendered in favor of Rodito Nasayao..

in turn. (c) the power of dismissal. in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Besides. at the time he was hired. the element of control is lacking. He was not subject to definite hours or conditions of work and. findings of fact of a voluntary arbitrator and administrative agencies which have acquired expertise in their respective fields. nor in the list of company employees furnished the Social Security System. He was not included in the company payroll. The court find the version of the petitioners to be more plausible and in accord with human nature and the ordinary course of things. the finding of the voluntary arbitrator that Rodito Nasayao was an employee of the petitioner corporation is not supported by the evidence or by the law. and that they were about to close shop in a few months' time. As pointed out by the petitioners. The Court has accorded great respect for. there was no employeremployee relationship between the parties. there is no basis for an award of unpaid salaries or wages to Rodito Nasayao. an amount which they could ill-afford to pay. there is nothing in the record which would support the claim of Rodito Nasayao that he was an employee of the petitioner corporation. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 109 . like the Labor Department and the National Labor Relations Commission. The court relied on the so -called "control test" that is the most important element.000. considering that the business was losing. Absent the power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which his work was to be accomplished. He had a free hand in running the company and its business. the elements that are generally considered are the following: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee.00.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION HELD: No. In the instant case. their findings of fact and the conclusions drawn therefrom have to be supported by substantial evidence. In that instant case. and finality to. was compensated according to the results of his own effort. He decided for himself on what was to be done and worked at his own pleasure. it was illogical for them to hire the private respondent Rodito Nasayao as plant manager with a monthly salary of P3. (b) the payment of wages. and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. it appears that the petitioners had no control over the conduct of Rodito Nasayao in the performance of his work. Most of all. Hence.

assails the validity of the order of the Court of Industrial Relations. The court is in opinion that the order under consideration meets the test of reasonableness and public interest. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. CONGRESS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (CLO). Chuan & Sons.R. That. L-2216 January 31. the Court of Industrial Relations cannot intervene in questions of selection of employees and workers so as to impose unconstitutional restrictions. and other labor conditions which it may take cognizance of. No. or is about to be. and the respondent labor union.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS." and that "The restrictions of the number of aliens that nay be employed in any business." the court granted the authority applied for but imposed as a condition that the majority of the twelve new laborers to be hired "should be native and only a nominal percentage thereof alien. applied to his disadvantage. it is clearly to be inferred that aliens in general are in petitioner's mind. is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The decision is rooted under "Commonwealth Act No." The legislature has the power to make regulations subject only to the condition that they should be affected with public interest and reasonableness under the circumstances. 
vs. occupation. CHUAN & SONS. 1950 DEE C. Inc.. compensation. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 110 . KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA PILIPINAS and JULIAN LUMANOG AND HIS WORK-CONTRACT LABORERS. Chuan & Sons. being subjected to restraints today." ISSUE: Whether or not an order issued by CIR limiting alien employment violates the equal protection of the laws? HELD: No. trade or profession of any kind. petitioner. Inc.. "This privilege of hiring and firing ad libitum is." The employer's right to hire labor is not absolute. TUASON. the former applied to the Court of Industrial Relations for authority "to hire about twelve more laborers from time to time and on a temporary basis. INC." In imposing such condition Dee C. respondents. J.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. An alien may question the constitutionality of a statute (or court order) only when and so far as it is being.The power may be exercised directly by the law-making body or delegated by appropriate rules to the courts or administrative agencies. The information does not name the persons who are supposed to be denied the equal protection of the laws. 103 has precisely vested the Court of Industrial Relations with authority to intervene in all disputes between employees or strikes arising from the difference as regards wages. of course. to be chosen by the petitioner from either Filipinos or Chinese.: FACTS: During the trial of an industrial dispute between Dee C.

Moreover. ISSUE: Whether there existed an employee employer relation between petitioner Dy Keh Beng and the respondents Solano and Tudla? HELD: Yes. Republic Act No. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. 
vs. Solano and Ricardo Tudla for their union activities. because there was no evidence to show that petitioner had the right to direct the manner and method of respondent's work. Evidence likewise showed that at times the establishment had eight (8) workers and never less than five (5). sub-paragraph (1) and (4). After preliminary investigation was conducted.R. An employee-employer relationship was found to have existed between Dy Keh Beng and complainants Tudla and Solano.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. respectively. DE CASTRO. 1955.00 a day. their work with the establishment was continuous although their services were compensated on piece basis. That the private respondents "did not meet the control test in the fight of the . The evidence for the complainant Union tended to show that Solano and Tudla became employees of Dy Keh Beng from May 2. Dy Keh Beng contended that he did not know Tudla and that Solano was not his employee because the latter came to the establishment only when there was work which he did on pakiaw basis. and that complainants used to receive ?5. a case was filed in the Court of Industrial Relations for in behalf of the International Labor and Marine Union of the Philippines and two of its members. and that except in the event of illness. by dismissing on September 28 and 29. although Solano was admitted to have worked on piece basis. petitioner.. 1979 DY KEH BENG. 1960. each piece of work being done under a separate contract. it is argued that petitioner's evidence showed that "Solano worked on a pakiaw basis" and that he stayed in the establishment only when there was work. No. sometimes less. including the complainants.: FACTS: Dy Keh Beng. respectively. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 111 . 875.. proprietor of a basket factory was charge of unfair labor practice for discriminatory acts within the meaning of Section 4(a). 1953 and July 15. ET AL. J. Carlos N. L-32245 May 25. The Court of Industrial Relations in their decision found the petitioner guilty of unfair labor practice. Solano and Tudla..
INTERNATIONAL LABOR and MARINE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES. respondents. definition of the terms employer and employee. Prompted the petitioner to seek review by certiorari.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 112 . Dy's requirements of size and quality of the kaing. it is natural to expect that those working under Dy would have to observe.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION The Court upholds the control test under which an employer-employee relationship exists "where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. Some control would necessarily be exercised by Dy as the making of the kaing would be subject to Dy's specifications. among others. since the work on the baskets is done at Dy's establishments. Parenthetically. " It should be borne in mind that the control test calls merely for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work. Findings shows that the establishment of Dy Keh Beng is "engaged in the manufacture of baskets known as kaing. it can be inferred that the proprietor Dy could easily exercise control on the men he employed. not the actual exercise of the right.


vs. HON. GUTIERREZ. Sr. in his capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court. seeking reconsideration on the decision rendered by this Court on October 16. 1992 FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE. 1990 which ruled that the Filamer is not liable for the injuries caused by Funtecha on the grounds that the latter was not an authorized driver. the servant was performing an act in furtherance of the interest and for the benefit of the Institute...LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. it is also the house where Funtecha was allowed free board while he was a student of Filamer Christian Institute. Roxas City and POTENCIANO KAPUNAN. No. Agustin Masa. Potenciano Kapunan. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT.: FACTS: Potenciano Kapunan. being a part-time janitor and a scholar of petitioner Filamer. the school president. ENRIQUE P. ISSUE: Whether or not Section 14. an employee assigned to clean the school premises for only two (2) hours in the morning of each school day. and was allowed. Allan Masa to drive. Branch XIV. under their supervision. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 113 . SR. respondents. assert that the circumstances in the present case call for the application of Article 2180 of the Civil Code since Funtecha is no doubt an employee of Filamer. Moreover. Rule X.. applying Civil Code provisions. that Funtecha was merely a working scholar who. Hence.
 HON.. at the time of the incident. Funtecha was a working student. SUPLICO. Book III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code can be invoked in the case at bar? HELD: No. Book III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code is not considered an employee of the Filamer. Sr. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. 75112 August 17. While on their way home one late afternoon Funtecha requested the driver. J. reinstate the Court of Appeals' decision. The court after a re-examination of the laws relevant to the facts. Rule X. It is significant to note that the place where Allan lives is also the house of his father. in relation to the school. He was. petitioner.R. JR. The Court reconsiders its decision. under Section 14. Funtecha allegedly did not steal the school jeep nor use it for a joy ride without the knowledge of the school authorities. That under Article 2180 an injured party shall have recourse against the servant as well as the Filamer for whom.

The liability of the employer is. makes the distinction and so holds that Section 14. and inclusion of resident physicians in the employment coverage as far as compliance with the substantive labor provisions on working conditions. and wages. thus. An implementing rule on labor cannot be used by an employer as a shield to avoid liability under the substantive provisions of the Civil Code. thus. The present case does not deal with a labor dispute on conditions of employment between an alleged employee and an alleged employer. on what records should be kept. rest periods. He was. Book III of the Rules implementing the Labor Code. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 114 . on payroll. It is undisputed that Funtecha was a working student. under Article 2180. The fact that Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting within the scope of his janitorial duties does not relieve the petitioner of the burden of rebutting the presumption juris tantum that there was negligence on its part either in the selection of a servant or employee. In other words. Rule X of Book III provides guidelines on the manner by which the powers of the Labor Secretary shall be exercised. was promulgated by the Secretary of Labor and Employment only for the purpose of administering and enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code on conditions of employment. an employee even if he was assigned to clean the school premises for only two (2) hours in the morning of each school day. on which the petitioner anchors its defense. in relation to the school. in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage. maintained and preserved. Rule X. has an obligation to pay damages for injury arising from the unskilled manner by which Funtecha drove the vehicle. the reliance on the implementing rule on labor to disregard the primary liability of an employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code is misplaced. It invokes a claim brought by one for damages for injury caused by the patently negligent acts of a person. against both doer-employee and his employer. The petitioner has failed to show proof of its having exercised the required diligence of a good father of a family over its employees Funtecha and Allan. for the service for which the jeep was intended by the petitioner school. Funtecha definitely was not having a joy ride. Rule X. The Court. the employer shall have recourse against the negligent employee for whatever damages are paid to the heirs of the plaintiff. The clause "within the scope of their assigned tasks" for purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an employer. Hence. and on the exclusion of working scholars from. Rule X is merely a guide to the enforcement of the substantive law on labor. the Court is constrained to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over the steering wheel was one done for and in behalf of his employer for which act the petitioner-school cannot deny any responsibility by arguing that it was done beyond the scope of his janitorial duties. or in the supervision over him. Funtecha was not driving for the purpose of his enjoyment or for a "frolic of his own" but ultimately.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Section 14. The petitioner. Particularly. includes any act done by an employee. Book III of the Rules is not the decisive law in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person during a vehicular accident against a working student of a school and against the school itself. Therefore. is concerned. being a part-time janitor and a scholar of petitioner Filamer. However. In learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction of Allan's house. primary and solidary.

M-02903-881. Petition for Certiorari was filed on the court. BIENVENIDO E. J. TORRES. The Court ruled that petitioners have failed to show that Secretary of Labor acted with grave of discretion in revoking petitioner Cone's Alien Employment Permit. No. petitioners. GMC filed a Motion for Reconsideration and two (2) Supplemental Motions for Reconsideration but said Motions were denied. LAGUESMA. respondents. DOLE granted the request on 15 February 1990 under Alien Employment Permit No. issued a decision ordering cancellation of Cone's employment permit on the ground that there was no showing that there is no person in the Philippines who is competent. Basketball Coaches Association of the Philippines ("BCAP") appealed the issuance of said alien employment permit to the respondent Secretary of Labor who. as sports consultant and assistant coach for General Milling Corporation ("GMC").
 HON.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. GMC's claim that hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's prerogative. and BASKETBALL COACHES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES. GMC requested renewal of Cone's alien employment permit. able and willing to perform the services required nor that the hiring of Cone would redound to the national interest. On 9 February 1990. 93666 April 22. M-0689-3-535 to petitioner Earl Timothy Cone. valid until 25 December 1990. HON. in his capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment. RUBEN D. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 115 . 1991 GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION and EARL TIMOTHY CONE.R.: FACTS: The National Capital Region of the Department of Labor and Employment issued Alien Employment Permit No. on 23 April 1990. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. 
vs. a United States citizen. GMC also requested that it be allowed to employ Cone as full-fledged coach. GMC and Cone entered into a contract of employment whereby the latter undertook to coach GMC's basketball team. in his capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment. ISSUE: Whether or not Secretary of Labor gravely abuse his discretion in rendering decision revoking petitioner Cone's Alien Employment Permit? HELD: No. FELICIANO.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Petitioner GMC's claim that hiring of a foreign coach is an employer's prerogative has no legal basis at all. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 116 . limited by the statutory requirement of an alien employment permit. cannot be seriously questioned. There is no showing of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent. able and willing at the time of application to perform the services required nor that the hiring of petitioner Cone would redound to the national interest. of course. The constitutional validity of legal provisions granting such jurisdiction and authority and requiring proof of non-availability of local nationals able to carry out the duties of the position involved. able and willing at the time of application to perform the services for which an alien is desired. Under Article 40 of the Labor Code." In short. the Department of Labor is the agency vested with jurisdiction to determine the question of availability of local workers. Petitioner GMC's right to choose whom to employ is. an employer seeking employment of an alien must first obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor. The Labor Code itself specifically empowers respondent Secretary to make a determination as to the availability of the services of a "person in the Philippines who is competent.

1990 to November 28.R. The Labor Arbiter rendered his decision finding the termination of private respondent as valid and dismissing the money claim for lack of merit. the instant petition for certiorari.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. An accidents happened because of respondents improper attitude towards work. After three days.: FACTS: Respondent Roberto Capili was hired by petitioner Nitto Enterprise. petitioner. 
 vs. respondents. 1990. private respondent formally filed before the NLRC Arbitration Branch. sometime in May 1990 as an apprentice machinist. 1993. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employer-apprentice relationship between petitioner and private respondent in the case at bar? HELD: No. Hence. petitioner did not comply with the requirements of the law. J. Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed apprenticeship program is. No. directed to reinstate complainant to his work with backwages. and declared that private respondent was a regular employee of petitioner.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROBERTO CAPILI. therefore. KAPUNAN. thru an apprenticeship agreement for a period of six (6) months from May 28. National Capital Region a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of other monetary benefits.912. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 117 . the National Labor Relations Commission issued an order reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The act of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor and Employment is a preliminary step towards its final approval and does not instantaneously give rise to an employer-apprentice relationship. On August 3. 1995 NITTO ENTERPRISES.79. a condition sine quo non before an apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into. 114337 September 29. a company engage in the sale of glass and aluminum products. molder and core maker. and asked to resign. Based on the evidence. On July 26. 1990 private respondent executed a Quitclaim and Release in favor of petitioner for and in consideration of the sum of P1. It is mandated that apprenticeship agreements entered into by the employer and apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment.

prior approval of the DOLE to any apprenticeship program has to be secured as a condition sine qua non before any such apprenticeship agreement can be fully enforced. He should rightly be considered as a regular employee of petitioner as defined by Article 280 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. Article 57 of the Labor Code provides that the State aims to "establish a national apprenticeship program through the participation of employers." ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 118 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Since the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent has no force and effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship program duly approved by the DOLE." To translate such objectives into existence. workers and government and non-government agencies" and "to establish apprenticeship standards for the protection of apprentices. private respondent's assertion that he was hired not as an apprentice but as a delivery boy ("kargador" or "pahinante") deserves credence.

the parties must be bound by some other relation. her own bookings her own business obtained from the airline companies.R. petitioners-appellants. L-41182-3 April 16. Mrs. which had its own. SARMIENTO . In the said contract Una Sevilla held herself solidarily liable with the parties for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on. and SEGUNDINA NOGUERA." Subsequently. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 119 . office.. In that event. Sevilla likewise shared in the expenses of maintaining the A. Mabini St. "where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. she had bound herself in solidum as and for rental payments. and the Tourist World Service. In the first place. like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls. or otherwise. either as to the result of the enterprise or as to the means used in connection therewith. Inc. there has been no uniform test to determine the evidence of an employeremployee relation. No.. we have considered.
THE COURT OF APPEALS. Mrs. that the relation between the parties was in the character of employer and employee. Lina Sevilla. Sevilla earned commissions for her own passengers. under the contract of lease covering the Tourist Worlds Ermita office. 
vs. J. Sevilla and Tourist World Service. Lic. In the case at bar. In general. however. She shared the 7% commissions given by the airline companies giving Tourist World Service. Sevilla did not receive any salary from Tourist World Service. CARLOS L. in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Sevilla would be given the title of branch manager for appearance's sake only... in addition to the standard of right-of control. respondents-appellees. Tourist World Service. Mrs.? HELD: No. Inc. but certainly not employment. In this jurisdiction. separate office located at the Trade Commerce Building. SEVILLA. Inc. maintains... the existing economic conditions prevailing between the parties.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D.CANILAO. Inc. ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employee-employer relationship between Mrs. TOURIST WORLD SERVICE. SEVILLA and LINA O. 3% thereof aid retaining 4% for herself. ELISEO S. Inc. paying for the salary of an office secretary It was the understanding between them that appellant Mrs. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. assume any liability thereof.: FACTS: On the strength of a contract entered into by and between Mrs. A true employee cannot be made to part with his own money in pursuance of his employer's business. Segundina Noguera. 1988 DR. leased the premises at Mabini St. was not subject to control by the private respondent Tourist World Service. we have relied on the so-called right of control test. INC. Manila for the former's use as a branch office.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 120 . under these circumstances. obviously relied on her own gifts and capabilities. As we said. But titles are weak indicators." Sevilla in pursuing the business. employment is determined by the right-of-control test and certain economic parameters.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Although. Sevilla were payable to Tourist World services. Tourist World's employee. it cannot be said that Sevilla was under the control of Tourist World Service. ergo. "as to the means used. Inc. It is further admitted that Sevilla was not in the company's payroll. The fact that Sevilla had been designated 'branch manager" does not make her. fares by any airline brought in on the effort of Mrs.

petitioners. holiday pay. EDUARDO BONDOC. . The agreement provided that California "has no control or supervisions whatsoever over Livi's workers with respect to how they accomplish their work or perform California's obligation". the relationship of principal-agent or employer-employee'. ELMER ARMADA. the Livi "is an independent contractor and nothing herein contained shall be construed as creating between California and Livi . 
vs. . the California Manufacturing Company.: FACTS: The petitioners petitioned the National Labor Relations Commission for reinstatement and payment of various benefits. RAMON M. As a result. against the respondent. VIOLY ESTEBAN and LYDIA ORTEGA. EDUARDO R.R. upon the expiration of which they signed new agreements with the same period. ROBERTO P.. EDUARDO UDOG. overtime pay. BRIONES. rules and regulations pertinent to employment of labor" and that "California is free and harmless from any liability arising from such laws or from any accident that may befall workers and employees of Livi while in the performance of their duties for California. It was further expressly stipulated that the assignment of workers to California shall be on a "seasonal and contractual basis".
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY. AZARCON. L-80680 January 26. and HON. California denied the existence of an employer-employee relation between the petitioners and the company and impleaded Livi Manpower Services. ARTHUR M. LILY-VICTORIA A. and that "payroll for the preceding week shall be delivered by Livi at California's premises. FEDERICO A. MIGUELITA QUIAMBOA. ESPINO. BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G. PETER TIANSING. as a party-respondent. respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employee-employer relationship between petitioners and California Manufacturing Company? ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 121 . 1989 DANILO B. INC. JOEL MADRIAGA. TABAS. ISLES. and emergency cost of living allowance pay. Petitioners were assigned to work as "promotional merchandisers" for California pursuant to a manpower supply agreement. NOMER MATAGA. Inc." The petitioners were then made to sign employment contracts with durations of six months. EMERSON C. they filed an amended complaint charging California with illegal dismissal. including minimum wage. BELITA. thirteen-month pay. AMARO BONA. ERISPE.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. J. FERDINAND CRUZ. No. TUMANON. that "it is hereby agreed that it is the sole responsibility of Livi to comply with all existing as well as future laws. that "cost of living allowance and the 10 legal holidays will be charged directly to California at cost ". Pending proceeding they were notified by California that they would not be rehired. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. SARMIENTO.

The court reiterate that the petitioners are its employees and who. they alone are bound by it. The existence of an employer-employees relation is a question of law and being such. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 122 . it supplied California with personnel. Hence. if an employer-employee relation otherwise exists between the workers and either firm. and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer from its adverse consequences. either or both shoulder responsibility. since the agreement was between Livi and California. " When it thus provided California with manpower. The Court need not therefore consider whether it is Livi or California which exercises control over the petitioner vis-a-vis the four barometers referred to earlier. renewed for another six months. under Article 281 of the Code. Of the four. In the case at bar.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION HELD: Yes. The Court has consistently ruled that the determination of whether or not there is an employeremployee relation depends upon four standards: (1) the manner of selection and engagement of the putative employee. the right-of-control test has been held to be the decisive factor. Hence. have acquired a regular status. the relations of parties must be judged from case to case and the decree of law. the fact that the manpower supply agreement between Livi and California had specifically designated the former as the petitioners' employer and had absolved the latter from any liability as an employer. and as the court indicated. (2) the mode of payment of wages. Hence. The fact that the petitioners have allegedly admitted being Livi's "direct employees" in their complaints is nothing conclusive. (3) the presence or absence of a power of dismissal. For one thing. by virtue of the required oneyear length-of-service. as if such personnel had been directly hired by California. For another. will not erase either party's obligations as an employer. At any rate. they had become regular employees-ofCalifornia-and had acquired a secure tenure. they cannot be separated without due process of law. will not absolve California since liability has been imposed by legal operation. Livi is admittedly an "independent contractor providing temporary services of manpower to its client. the fact that the petitioners were (are). it cannot be made the subject of agreement. Accordingly. Article 106 of the Code applies. The records show that the petitioners bad been given an initial six-month contract. since by fiction of law. and (4) the presence or absence of a power to control the putative employee's conduct. and not by declarations of parties.

Labor Arbiter Benigno C. denied motion for reconsideration. VIRGINIA HERESANO. Virginia Heresano 6. that they were paid on piece-work basis. Joseph Lluz 2. according to Zanotte. No. 1987 20-Oct-87 January. Zanotte Shoes. rendered judgment in favor of the complainants. ordered to pay the separation pay and all other cost. HON. 1980 January. 1982 May. Carmelita de Dios DATE March. VITUG.. On appeal. Noel Adarayan 3.R. 17.: FACTS: Private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal to Zanotte Shoes. NLRC sustained the findings of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the appeal. JR. respondents. and that. Rogelio Sira 4. VILLARENTE. 1975 1 that they worked for a minimum of twelve hours daily. normally twice a year. including Sundays and holidays when needed. GENELITO HERESANO and CARMELITA DE DIOS. ISSUE: Whether respondents? an employer-employee relationship existed ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS between petitioners and private Page 123 . when heavy job orders would come in. Villarente.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION MITCHELLE D. 100665 February 13. JOSEPH LLUZ. the following dates: NAME 1. LOLITO LLUZ. 
vs. NOEL ADARAYAN. Private respondents. one in June (coinciding with the opening of school classes) and another in December (during the Christmas holidays). Lolito Lluz 5.. claimed that their business operations were only seasonal. Private respondents averred that they started to work for petitioners on. were engaged on purely contractual basis and paid the rates conformably with their respective agreements. 1985 Feb. respectively. J. when they demanded an increase in their pay rates. they were prevented from entering the work premises.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. petitioners. BENIGNO C. Genelito Heresano 7. Hence the instant petition. 1995 ZANOTTE SHOES/LEONARDO LORENZO. Jr. 1982 March. ROGELIO SIRA. that it "angered" Lorenzo when they requested to be made members of the Social Security System ("SSS"). BRACAMONTE 2011-0152 G.

and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the result of the work to be done and to the means and methods by which the work to be done and to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. et al. if not finality. Citing Dy Keh Beng v. (c) the power of dismissal. The work of private respondents is clearly related to. and will not be disturbed absent any showing that substantial evidence which might otherwise affect the result of the case has been discarded. all extant in the case at bench. so herein posed as an issue. are accorded respect. for disturbing the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between herein private parties. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 124 . include (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. (b) the payment of wages. particularly when they coincide with that of the Labor Arbiter. the principal business activity of petitioners.. and in the pursuit of. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the NLRC. in this case at bench. refers to the existence of the right to control and not necessarily to the actual exercise of the right. The court see no reason. The indicia used for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. International Labor and Marine Union of the Philippines.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION HELD: Yes. The requirement.

111870 Date: June 30. payment of notarial services rendered from February 1. 1987. moral and exemplary damages. Though his appointment was for a fixed term of three years. and (4) employer's own power to control employee's conduct. On January 9. 1990. (3) power of dismissal. Potente: CRUZ. No less importantly. No.: Facts: Private respondent Luis S. cost of living allowances. J. INC. 1990. He was also denied moral and exemplary damages for lack of evidence of bad faith on the part of AMWSLAI. Petitioner filed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Never the less the Labor Arbiter found out that Salas was not illegally dismissed and so not entitled to collect separation benefits. 2011-0125 Case Title: AIR MATERIAL WING SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION. the petitioner issued another order reminding Salas of the approaching termination of his legal services under their contract. Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 125 .R. however the motion was denied.. On appeal the decision was affirmed in toto by the NLRC. 1980 to March 2. and attorney's fees. et. The petitioner paid him a monthly compensation/retainer's fee for his services. vacation and sick leave benefits. it agued that there was no employer employee relationship. the petitioner was ordered to pay Salas his notarial fees from 1987 up to March 2. This prompted Salas to lodge a complaint against AMWSLAI for separation pay. However. No.. the elements are: (1) selection and engagement of the employee.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. sick leave. Darwin A. clearly show that Salas was an employee of the petitioner. (2) payment of wages. the petitioner reserved its power of dismissal for cause or as it might deem necessary for its interest and protection. medical and dental allowances and refund of SSS premiums were rejected on the ground that he was a managerial employee. Neither was he allowed to collect his notarial fees from 1980 up to 1986 because the claim therefor had already prescribed. Held: Existence of employer-employee relationship can be determined through the four fold test. al.: G. et al. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Issue: Whether or not Salas can be considered as an employee of the company? Whether or not he is entitled to collect notarial fees. G. His claims for vacation leave. The parties were ordered to submit their position paper but AMWSLAI did not comply. Inc. vs. 1994 Petitioner: Air Material Wing Savings and Loan Association. The terms and conditions set out in the letter-contract entered into by the parties on January 23. The existence of such a relationship is essentially a factual question. Salas was appointed "notarial and legal counsel" for petitioner Air Material Wings Savings and Loan Association (AMWSLAI) in 1980 and then it was renewed for three years in 1987.R. and attorney's fee equivalent to 10% of the judgment award. refund of SSS premiums. AMWSLAI also exercised its power of control over Salas by defining his duties and functions as its legal counsel. His selection as the company counsel was done by the board of directors in one of its regular meetings. 1990.

only that the one is an employee while the other group is not. The lettercontract of January 23. it would appear that his notarial services were part of his regular functions and were thus already covered by his monthly compensation. SC affirmed the NLRC decision but modified it by deleting the payment of notarial fees and the award of attorney's fees. There is no evidence to support that his notarial services will be paid separately. does not contain any stipulation for the separate payment of notarial fees to Salas in addition to his basic salary. Some lawyers are hired as regular members of the company's staff.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION A lawyer like any other professional may very well be an employee of a big company. With regard to the payment of notarial fees. Both groups of lawyers often work closely together. On the contrary. at the same time may contract with law firms to act as outside counsel on a retainer basis. 1987. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 126 . the court does not agree with the findings of the decision of NLRC.

2006 Petitioner: Angelina Francisco Respondents: NLRC. Fuentes as Manager. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 127 . rather they only engaged her as technical consultant. In 1996. petitioner performed her work at her own discretion without control and supervision of Kasei Corporation. affirmed by NLRC but CA reversed the decision. Seiichiro Takahashi. Whether on not petitioner was illegally dismissed. Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor. Kasei Corp. Her salary was reduced to P2500. Delfin Liza. they presented documents showing that she was not included in the employees reported to BIR. and Ramon Escueta Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO.00 plus P3. construction permits and other licenses for the initial operation of the company. petitioner was designated Acting Manager.000. She was tasked to handle recruitment of all employees and performs management administration functions. In January 2001. Even worst the company stopped paying her reasoning that the company is not profiting. The company contended that she was not their employee. Trinidad Liza. thus this petition.: 170087 Date: August 31.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado.500. No. she manned this position. As of December 31. petitioner was hired by Kasei Corporation with the designation as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounting needs of the company. SSS and in the city government of Makati. She was also designated as Liaison Officer to the City of Makati to secure business permits.. As technical consultant.00 housing allowance and a 10% share in the profit of Kasei Corporation. To prove further. especially with the BIR.: Facts: In 1995. and to administer all other matters pertaining to the operation of Kasei Restaurant which is owned and operated by Kasei Corporation. 2000 her salary was P27. represent the company in all dealings with government agencies.R. Timoteo Acedo. 2011-0125 Case Title: ANGELINA FRANCISCO vs. NLRC G. Darwin A. Irene Ballesteros. Petitioner then filed an action for constructive dismissal against respondent company. J. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was an employee of Kasei Corporation. For five years.00. petitioner was replaced by Liza R.

Evidence gave no other conclusion that petitioner is an employee of respondent Kasei Corporation. skill. By applying the control test. She received regular compensation. judgment or foresight required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise. and (7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued employment in that line of business. bonus and other emoluments. the corporation’s Technical Consultant. with substantially the same job functions. that is. Acting Manager and Corporate Secretary. This is especially appropriate in this case where there is no written agreement or terms of reference to base the relationship on. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 128 . The company also registered her in the SSS. and due to the complexity of the relationship based on the various positions and responsibilities given to the worker over the period of the latter’s employment. (6) the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker and the employer. (3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer. (5) the amount of initiative. SC set aside CA decision and reinstated NLRC decision. rendering accounting and tax services to the company and performing functions necessary and desirable for the proper operation of the corporation such as securing business permits and other licenses over an indefinite period of engagement. She reported for work regularly and served in various capacities as Accountant. (2) the extent of the worker’s investment in equipment and facilities.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: Generally the courts rely on the control test to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship. there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura. The two-tiered test involve (1) the putative employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. (4) the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss. such as: (1) the extent to which the services performed are an integral part of the employer’s business. the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activity. And that she was constructively dismissed when her salary was reduced to P2500 which amount to illegal dismissal. but sometimes it was proved insufficient thus the necessity to adopt the two-tiered test which would take into consideration the totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties. Technical Consultant. Thus. With the above realities it is indeed certain that petitioner is the employee of the company. and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship. Liaison Officer.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. vs. He was merely an agent or independent dealer of the company. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 129 . instructions and other orders. 3) power of dismissal. memoranda. 2) payment of wages.: 87098 Date: November 4.00 as his sales commission. Issue: Whether or not respondent Limjoco is and employee of petitioner Encyclopedia Britanica. Darwin A. J. Consequently. 2011-0125 Case Title: ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (PHILIPPINES). In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship the following elements must be present: 1) selection and engagement of the employee. Labor Arbiter Teodorico Rogelio and Benjamin Limjoco Ponente: Torres. 000. INC. there was no employer-employee relationship. later affirmed by the NLRC. Limjoco resigned to pursue his own business. On October 30. Of the above. control of employee's conduct is commonly regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employeremployee relationship. On June 14 1974. 1996 Petitioner(s): Encyclopedia Britanica (Philippines). The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of respondent Limjoco. hence this petition. He further claimed that he was under the supervision of the petitioner's officials who issued to him and his other personnel. Petitioner argued that respondent is not its employee but an independent dealer who received commission there from. NLRC G. No. Limjoco and petitioner Britanica agreed however that office expenses will be deducted from his commission.R.: Facts: Benjamin Limjoco was a sales division manager of Encyclopedia Britanica.. Inc. The latter did not even report to the office of the petitioner and did not observe fixed office hours. Respondent insisted his claim that he was indeed an employee of respondent company assigned at the sales department earning an average monthly income of P4. Held: The court held that respondent Limjoco is not an employee of Encyclopedia Britanica. and 4) the power to control the employee's conduct. claiming for non-payment of separation pay and other benefits. Limjoco has his own agents on which he receives commission out of their sales. 1975 he filed a complaint against petitioner Encyclopedia Britannica with the Department of Labor and Employment. Jr.. Petitioner argued that it had no control and supervision over the complainant as to the manner and means he conducted his business operations. and also for illegal deduction from his sales commissions. Respondent (s): NLRC. guidelines on company policies.

Furthermore. In fact it only issued such memoranda merely to set up guidelines and policies which the sales managers follow and impose on their respective agents. private respondent Limjoco and the other agents were free to conduct and promote their sales operations. wherein fact at that time he was also a director and later president of the Farmer's Rural Bank. Nevertheless.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Although the company issued memoranda to respondent does not sufficiently prove that indeed the company has control over Limjoco. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 130 . If he was indeed an employee of petitioner it could have barred him from indulging in other employment or demanded his full time devotion to the company. respondent was absolutely free to conduct his work and indulge in other means of livelihood. The issuance of such memoranda was done by the petitioner only to notify the respondent and other sales manager of the company's policies and procedures. Finally. but never the less respondent is free to conduct his own marketing operations. the fixing of the price by petitioner was only for the purpose of uniformity.

1996 Petitioner: Eddie Domasig Respondents: NLRC and/or Otto Ong and Catalina Co. 1992 respondent company dismissed petitioner based on an allegation that he was being pirated by competitor company but was declined by the petitioner. we agree with the labor arbiter that these matters constitute substantial evidence adequate to support a conclusion that petitioner was indeed an employee of private respondent. 1986. Any competent and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted. To support the claim. Ponente: Padilla. NLRC G. It has long been established that in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. Substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.Darwin A. expenses incurred. substantial evidence is sufficient as a basis for judgment on the existence of employer-employee relationship. 2011-0125 Case Title: Domasig vs. The labor arbiter decided in favor of petitioner. Together with the cash vouchers covering petitioner's salaries for the months stated therein. The list of sales collection including computation of commissions due. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent. J. consisting of the identification card issued to him by private respondent corporation and the cash vouchers reflecting his monthly salaries covering the months stated therein. On the other hand. cash advances received for the month of January and March 1992. settled the issue of employeremployee relationship between private respondents and petitioner.: 118101 Date: September 16.: Facts: Eddie Domasig was employed by respondent Cata Garments Corporation as Salesman since July 6.50 on bargain price. In August 29. expenses incurred and cash advances received (Exhibits "B" and "B-1") which. petitioner presented the company ID issued to him by respondent company and the cash vouchers to prove that he receives a monthly salary. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 131 . In a business establishment. It ordered that the case be reverted to the arbitration branch of origin for further proceeding. He received a monthly salary of 1500 a month plus commission. Issue: Whether or not the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in vacating and setting aside the decision of the labor arbiter and remanding the case to the arbitration branch of origin for further proceedings. Held: In the case at bar respondent NLRC was not convinced that the evidence presented by the petitioner.00 per article sold and 2.R. Respondent company denied that petitioner was its regular employee. Computation of Commission due. thus Labor Arbiter's decision was not supported by evidence. instead it tried to prove that petitioner was only a commission agent who receives a commission of 5. company presented the list of Sales Collections. but was set aside by NLRC declaring that there was no sufficient evidence presented to prove the presence of employer-employee relationship. No particular form of evidence is required is required to prove the existence of such employer-employee relationship. an identification card is usually provided not only as a security measure but mainly to identify the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm that issues it.

illegal as it was not supported by any valid basis. Respondent di not deny the allegation that the sole basis of the dismissal was the allege enticement of other employer to work with them. Having been in the employ of private respondents continuously for more than one year.500. substantial evidence being sufficient. the labor arbiter failed to appreciate in support of private respondents" allegation as regards the nature of petitioner's employment as a commission agent. it was indeed.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION according to public respondent. Labor Arbiter was reinstated with modifications on the computation of monetary claims. nor even preponderance of evidence for that matter. aside from a monthly salary of P1. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 132 . On the issue of dismissal. Labor Arbiter's decision on the presence of employer-employee relationship is supported by substantial evidence. cannot overcome the evidence of the ID card and salary vouchers presented petitioner which private respondents have not denied. he also received commissions for his work as a salesman of private respondents. The list presented by private respondents would even support petitioner's allegations that.00. petitioner is considered a regular employee. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as a basis for judgment on the legality of an employer's dismissal of an employee. under the law.

each work being under separate contact. The hearing examiner’s report which was affirmed in toto by the CIR found that indeed there was employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents. Issue: Whether or not there existed an employee employer relation between petitioner Dy Keh Beng and the respondents Solano and Tudla . et. It should be borne in mind that the control test calls merely for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work. G. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 133 . Petitioner contended that he did not know Tudla while Solano was not his employee. respectively. sub-paragraph (1) and (4). Bienvenido Onayan. it can be inferred that the proprietor Dy could easily exercise control on the men he employed. Solano and Ricardo Tudla for their union activities. for discriminatory acts within the meaning of Section 4(a). al. Petitioner further contended that without satisfying the control test there can be no employer-employee relationship. 2011-0125 Case Title:DY KEH BEN vs. and that except in the event of illness.: L-32245 Date: May 25. 1960. J. Republic Act No. proprietor of a basket factory. it is natural to expect that those working under Dy would have to observe. by dismissing on September 28 and 29. Since the work on the baskets is done at Dy's establishments.: Facts: A charge of unfair labor practice was filed against Dy Keh Beng. among others. 1979 Petitioner(s): Dy Keh Beng Respondent(s): NLRC. Moreover. No. ET AL.R. their work with the establishment was continuous although their services were compensated on piece basis. Carlos N. respectively. 1953 and July 15. Dy's requirements of size and quality of the kaing. not the actual exercise of the right. Ponente: De Castro. Solano and Tudla became employees of Dy Keh Beng from May 2. 1955. He said that Solano would only appear to the establishment when there is work which he did on pakyaw basis. Darwin A.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. Considering the finding by the Hearing Examiner that the establishment of Dy Keh Beng is "engaged in the manufacture of baskets known as kaing. Dy Keh Beng countered with a special defense of simple extortion committed by the head of the labor union. 875. the court found that indeed petition exercise control over respondents. INTERNATIONAL LABOR and MARINE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES. Some control would necessarily be exercised by Dy as the making of the kaing would be subject to Dy's specifications. Held: Contrary to the petitioners contention that the control test is not sufficiently satisfied.

a labor contract -between employers and employees. 523). v.518. the court adopted the finding of the court examiner that payment by the piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relation. in fact. is. Court of Industrial Relations" (83 Phil. concurring with Chief Justice Ricardo Paras who penned the decision in "Sunrise Coconut Products Co. between capitalists and laborers." ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 134 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION As to the contention that Solano was not an employee since he only worked on pakyaw basis.. who stated that "Judicial notice of the fact that the socalled "pakyaw" system mentioned in this case as generally practiced in our country. The court also noted the opinion of Justices Perfecto.

al. Manuel Morales. 2011-0125 Case Title: Equitable Banking Corporation vs. Sometime. mismanagement. Go. Sadac was asked to resign.: 102467 Date: June 13. Labor Arbiter decided in favor of petitioner Bank. it was then that he lodged a complain before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. Later on was designated also as General Cousel of the Bank. but was reversed by NLRC. but refused instead demanded for a hearing in relation to the issue so that he may well clear his name. The bank then formally terminated him. was assigned to investigate on the matter which declared that the allegations were true although no rigid investigation was made. Go. hence the petition.: Facts: Ricardo Sadac was hired by petitioner bank as Vice president for Legal Department. Various tasks of legal nature were assigned to him.R. Respondent: NLRC and Ricardo Sadac Ponente: VITUG. he was also given the power to supervise all personnel in the legal department. No. Respondent bank denied the existence of employer-employee relationship but instead argued that what exists is an ordinary client-lawyer relationship. NLRC G. John C.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. et. one of the directors. George L. he also expressed his intent to file libel case against Banico. His persistent demand for hearing was not granted instead the president stated that he was not being terminated but must bear in his conscience that he will keep receiving his monthly salary and other benefits with out performing any work since his duties were now delegated to another lawyer. B. 9 lawyers under him filed a petition accusing private respondent of abusive conduct. Banico. Darwin A. Issue: Whether or not there exist an employer-employee relationship between petitioner bank and private respondent. ineffectiveness and indecisiveness. Mr. inefficiency. In the contract also is stated that he may be given other duties as may be assigned by the president and Board of Directors. 1997 Petitioner: Equitable Banking Corp. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 135 . J.

The respondent bank did not state. On the contrary it is obvious that respondent performed functions directly related to the banks operation.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: The decision was relied upon on the case of Hydro Resouces vs. His notarial services was likewise not given to him but accrued to the bank's income. otherwise prove that respondent was hired as an outside counsel paid on a retainer basis. More so. Furthermore. he enjoys benefits like any other company officers such as when he availed the car loan benefit of the company. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 136 . Pagalilauan. The right to be notified of the charges and to hearing cannot be dispensed with. thus the dismissal is illegal. Respondent was dismissed with out sufficient basis. where in the court stated that a lawyer like any other professionals may very well be an employee of a private corporation. he must be accorded due process. In company record he is registered as one of its corporate officers. SC affirmed NLRC decision with modification as to the grant of moral and exemplary damages. In any case prior to termination of an employee. The respondent bak also committed a grave error in dispensing with substantial and procedural due process. The company also registered him in the SSS as its employee. in several occasions evidenced by official company communications he was referred to by the president as an employee. only that of the allegation in the petition of the 9 lawyers but with out substantial proof.

John C. George L. 1997 Petitioner: Equitable Banking Corp.: 102467 Date: June 13. Go. Go.R. it was then that he lodged a complain before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. al. Various tasks of legal nature were assigned to him. et. mismanagement. B. Sometime. Sadac was asked to resign. His persistent demand for hearing was not granted instead the president stated that he was not being terminated but must bear in his conscience that he will keep receiving his monthly salary and other benefits with out performing any work since his duties were now delegated to another lawyer. was assigned to investigate on the matter which declared that the allegations were true although no rigid investigation was made. he also expressed his intent to file libel case against Banico. ineffectiveness and indecisiveness. J. one of the directors. The bank then formally terminated him. Issue: Whether or not there exist an employer-employee relationship between petitioner bank and private respondent. Mr. Darwin A. hence the petition. Manuel Morales. but refused instead demanded for a hearing in relation to the issue so that he may well clear his name. 9 lawyers under him filed a petition accusing private respondent of abusive conduct. NLRC G. he was also given the power to supervise all personnel in the legal department. but was reversed by NLRC. 2011-0125 Case Title: Equitable Banking Corporation vs. Banico. Respondent bank denied the existence of employer-employee relationship but instead argued that what exists is an ordinary client-lawyer relationship.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. Labor Arbiter decided in favor of petitioner Bank. No.: Facts: Ricardo Sadac was hired by petitioner bank as Vice president for Legal Department. In the contract also is stated that he may be given other duties as may be assigned by the president and Board of Directors. Respondent: NLRC and Ricardo Sadac Ponente: VITUG. Later on was designated also as General Cousel of the Bank. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 137 . inefficiency.

otherwise prove that respondent was hired as an outside counsel paid on a retainer basis. only that of the allegation in the petition of the 9 lawyers but with out substantial proof. The respondent bank did not state. he enjoys benefits like any other company officers such as when he availed the car loan benefit of the company. The respondent bak also committed a grave error in dispensing with substantial and procedural due process. In any case prior to termination of an employee. Pagalilauan. Furthermore. he must be accorded due process. His notarial services was likewise not given to him but accrued to the bank's income. where in the court stated that a lawyer like any other professionals may very well be an employee of a private corporation. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 138 . More so.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: The decision was relied upon on the case of Hydro Resouces vs. On the contrary it is obvious that respondent performed functions directly related to the banks operation. Respondent was dismissed with out sufficient basis. The company also registered him in the SSS as its employee. in several occasions evidenced by official company communications he was referred to by the president as an employee. In company record he is registered as one of its corporate officers. The right to be notified of the charges and to hearing cannot be dispensed with. thus the dismissal is illegal. SC affirmed NLRC decision with modification as to the grant of moral and exemplary damages.

On June 28. Petitioner maintained its position that respondent is merely an agent and not its employee. Darwin A. 1989 Petitioner(s): Great Pacific Life Insurance Company Respondent(s): Honorato Judico and NLRC Ponente: PARAS J. Furthermore he receives a weekly allowance of 200. 1976.R. they shoulder their own selling expenses as well as transportation. but ordered the awards of 1000 for Christian reasons.: 73887 Date: December 21. they are not required to account for their time nor submit a report of their activities. 1982.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. they do not have to devote their time exclusively to or work solely for the company since the time and the effort they spend in their work depend entirely upon their own will and initiative. He receives a fixed wage known as "sales reserve". and they are paid their commission based on a certain percentage of their sales. Among his assigned duty was to perform the collection of premiums. Labor Arbiter decided favoring petitioner Grepalife. However there are two types of insurance company agent: (1) salaried employees who keep definite hours and work under the control and supervision of the company.: Facts: On June 9. although moot and academic at that point explained that the awards of 1000 has no legal justification. One salient point in the determination of employer-employee relationship which cannot be easily ignored is the fact that the compensation that these agents on commission received is not paid by the insurance ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 139 . private respondent Judico entered into an agreement of agency with petitioner Grepalife to become a debit agent attached to the industrial life agency in Cebu City. weekly or monthly and which are collectible by the debit agents at the home or any place designated by the policy holder. HONORATO JUDICO G. his nature of employment must be scrutinized. Issue: Whether or Not there exist an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and private respondent? Held: To determine the whether Judico is a regular employee. Petitioner defines a debit agent as "an insurance agent selling/servicing industrial life plans and policy holders. NLRC reversed the decision. 2011-0125 Case Title: GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION vs. Later he was promoted to Zone supervisor and he was given an additional fixed allowance of 110 per week. The agents who belong to the second category are not required to report for work at anytime. No. Unquestionably respondent Judico is an agent of the petitioner. and (2) registered representatives who work on commission basis. complainant was dismissed by way of termination of his agency contract. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Industrial life plans are those whose premiums are payable either daily.

Respondent Judico is an employee of Petitioner Company and his dismissal is illegal. Moreover he receives a regular wage in the form of sales reserve. After determining the commission earned by an agent on his sales the agent directly deducts it from the amount he received from the investor or the person insured and turns over to the insurance company the amount invested after such deduction is made. Respondent clearly belong to the first type of agents who are considered as regular employee. He was also mandated to make regular reports. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 140 . where in case of poor performance would revert to the beginner's stage wherein he will only receive the 200 weekly allowance.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION company but by the investor (or the person insured). The test therefore is whether the "employer" controls or has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. He was given a definite place to work in the office. Facts of the case showed that respondent has exercised control over petitioner.

and otherwise treat them like its other officers and employees. Applying the four fold test.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. 1980. 1980 because of his alleged failure to perform his duties well.00. Aban was dismissed on his alleged failure to perform his duties well. exercised control over Aban by defining the duties and functions of his work all of which satisfies the elements of employer-employee relationship. Aban worked solely for the petitioner and dealt only with legal matters involving the said corporation and its employees. petitioner company is now barred by estoppel. It initially presented documents before the labor arbiter to prove that Aban was a managerial employee. Jr. On September 4. pay them regular salaries. The SC sustained the findings of the NLRC finding Aban was illegally dismissed. may very well be an employee of a private corporation or even of the government. dentists. Petitioner Corporation hired the private respondent Aban as its "Legal Assistant. Aban received a letter from the corporation informing him that he would be considered terminated effective October 4.: Facts: On October 24. 1980. It is not unusual for a big corporation to hire a staff of lawyers as its in-house counsel. but if reinstatement is no longer feasible to pay him separation pay. 1989 Ponente: Gutierrez. affirmed by the NLRC Issue: Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner Corporation and Aban. A similar arrangement may exist as to doctors.00 plus an initial living allowance of P50. The two classes of lawyers often work closely together but one group is made up of employees while the other is not. Darwin A. 2011-0125 Case Title: Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation vs. ordering that he shall be reinstated without lose of seniority plus back wages. nurses. Aban was employed by the petitioner to be its Legal Assistant as evidenced by his appointment paper (Exhibit "A"). exercised its power to hire and fire the respondent employee and more important. rank them in its table of organization. and now would try to prove that Aban was not its employee. (Exhibit "B"). ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 141 . Furthermore.. He also assisted the Personnel Officer in processing appointment papers of employees.: L-62909 Date: April 18. but the relationship was only that of a client-lawyer relation. Thereafter. This latter duty is not an act of a lawyer in the exercise of his profession but rather a duty for the benefit of the corporation. No. public relations practitioners. like any other professional. Held: A lawyer. The above-mentioned facts show that the petitioner paid Aban's wages. 1978. it may also contract with a law firm to act as outside counsel on a retainer basis. Aban filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal. J. and other professionals. Petitioner contended that Aban was not its employee.R. The petitioner paid him a basic salary plus living allowance." He received a basic monthly salary of Pl. The labor arbiter ruled that Aban was illegally dismissed. Pagalilauan G.00 which gradually increased to P320. On October 6.500. At the same time.

Labor Arbiter Aninon and Pantaleon De Los Reyes Potente: BELLOSILLO. J. 2011-0125 Case Title: INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. The Labor Arbiter decided adversely against respondent declaring that there in no employer-employee relationship. Cebu City). Held: Contrary to petitioner's argument the court found that the four fold test is sufficiently satisfied based on the facts of the case. the "four-fold test" on employment earlier mentioned has to be applied. LTD Respondet(s): NLRC. The respondent was notified by petitioner on 18 November 1993 that his services were terminated effective 18 December 1993. the employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. On 1 March 1993 petitioner and private respondent entered into another contract where the latter was appointed as Acting Unit Manager under its office. LTD. he was not an independent contractor. No.R. Moreover. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 142 . Finally. LABOR ARBITER NICASIO P. vs. petitioner was prohibited from working in any other insurance company or even in the government without the respondent’s approval. ANINON and PANTALEON DE LOS REYES. In the contract it expressly stated that there is no employer-employee relationship between company and De Los Reyes. facts showed that company exercised effective control over respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Fourth Division. (b) he was required to meet certain manpower and production quota. there is no doubt that an employer employee relationship exist. the existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated by expressly repudiating it in the management contract and providing therein that the "employee" is an independent contractor when the terms of the agreement clearly show otherwise. In determining the status of the management contract. De los Reyes was to serve exclusively the company. 1998 Petitioner(s): Insular Life Assurance Co.. In the case at bar. Respondent is an employee of Petitioner Company and his dismissal was illegal.: Facts: 21 August 1992 petitioner entered into an agency contract with respondent Pantaleon de los Reyes authorizing the latter to solicit within the Philippines applications for life insurance and annuities for which he would be paid compensation in the form of commissions. and.. Issue: Whether or not there exist employers-employee relationship between Petitioner Company and private respondent. therefore. (c) petitioner controlled the assignment to and removal of soliciting agents from his unit. Darwin A. Thus he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. This decision was reversed by the NLRC. For.: 119930 Date: March 12. G. thus the petition. Based on the new management contract.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado.

No. 27. the presidential decrees are made in accordance with the law as grand by the martial law rule. Philip Ella Juico. They also question the power of the president to issue the assailed E. which in fact is one of its most controversial provisions. J. The argument of some of the petitioners that Proc. With the adoption of CARP law. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 143 . 6657. 2011-0125 Case Title: Manaay vs. Held: In resolving questions of constitutionality. We believes that the congress of the president before adopting a law made an exhaustive study that such law will be in accordance with the law. R. 6657 does provide for such limits now in Section 6 of the law. The court therefore rules that the assailed laws and issuances are all constitutional.: Facts: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of P. As to the power of the president to make a law. 228 as qualified farmers under P.O. 228 and 229.O. They also raise the issue that said laws violate the equal protection law.A. the tenant are to be granted full ownership of the portion of the land they till. No. No.O. Manaay and Agustin Hermano Jr. Sec of Agrarian Reform and LBP Ponente: CRUZ. On the question of equal protection the court find no violation of the elements of equal protection. During the time of Pres. 229 should be invalidated because they do not provide for retention limits as required by Article XIII. No.: 79777 Date: July 14. No. No. Most of the questions raised here in are now moot and academic. Nos.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado.A. E. Issue: Whether or not the said laws are in contravention with the constitution. The tenants were declared full owners of these lands by E. arguing that such is a usurpation of legislative powers.D. Darwin A. Juico G.R.O. the court takes a cautious step. Jr.D. and R. Aquino she is empowered to do so by the transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution. 27. 131 and E. The subjects of this petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned by petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned by petitioner Augustin Hermano. No. No. Section 4 of the Constitution is no longer tenable. Respondent(s): Hon. 1989 Petitioner(s): Nicolas S.

2011-0125 Case Title: Opulencia vs. . Issue: Whether on not Manuel Esit is an employee of Opulencia ice plant? Held: The court cannot agree with the petitioner's contentions. On the petitioners argument that Esita's mechanic services is not regular but based on necessity alone is likewise devoid of merit. premium for holiday and rest day. Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Esita and affirmed by NLRC with modifications as the the amount of monetary award. for about a month he helped in the renovation of Dr. He further asserted that Esita was not even included in the payroll. . Opulencia'a house. legal holiday. The admission of the petitioner that the weekly payroll he presented do not contain all the names of employee negates his claims. Labor Arbiter Villena and Manuel Esita Ponente: Bellosillo. San Pablo City.: L-98368 Date: December 15 1993 Petitioner: Opulencia Ice Plant and/or Melchor Opulencia Respondent: NLRC. J. his petition is devoid of merit. Lastly." Petition is dismissed ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 144 . separation/retirement pay and allowances against petitioners. He was initially assigned to the plant in San Pablo but was later moved to Calamba to replace the old and weak compressor operator Lorenzo Eseta. On 6 February 1989. Consequently. The court also took notice of his unwillingness to present the payroll covering the period on which Esita claimed to be the period of his employment. Opulencia justified the stay of Esita in the premises of the ice plant saying that it is purely out of benevolence. He contended that he was a mere peon during the renovation of his house. More importantly. NLRC G. Sometime.R. 13th month. "any employee who has rendered at least one year of service.Darwin A. No. In sum.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. On his defense Opulencia denied that Esita was his employee in the Ice plant. Absence of payroll or material evidence does not give rise to the conclusion the employer-employee relationship could no longer be proven. shall be considered a regular employee with respect to that activity in which he is employed . he filed with Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch IV. whether such service is continuous or broken. We cannot sustain this argument. a complaint for illegal dismissal.: Facts: Manuel Esita was an employee of Opulencia Ice Plant for 20 years. In this regard the court aptly applied the disputable presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. under the Labor Code. non-payment for overtime. Esita was dismissed from service. He further contended that granting arguendo Esita was truly a mechanic. for demanding the correct amount of wages due him. underpayment. Absent such can still be validated through testimonial evidence. Esita worked for 9 years and. Thus the petition. the more significant consideration being that the work of the employee is usually necessary or desirable in the business of the employer. . An employee who is required to remain on call in the employer's premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose shall be considered as working while on call. the determination of regular and casual employment is not affected by the fact that the employee's regular presence in the place of work is not required. his services would only be required when there is a need for repair and therefore not on a regular basis. This circumstance cannot affect the regular status of employment of Esita.

Yolanda E. there is a stipulation which states that petitioner in not an employee of the company. Jr. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION G.: Facts: Metro Times Corporation. No. regardless of the nature of the activity performed or of whether it is continuous or intermittent. PAGUIO vs.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: EFREN P. 2003 Petitioner: Efren Paguio Respondets: NLRC.R. 1992 barely 2 months after the fifth renewal of his contract with the company he was informed about his termination based on accusations not clearly established. Moreover. In their contract. Even in these latter cases.Metro Media Times Corp. On August 15. A regular employee is one who is engaged to perform activities which are necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer as against those which are undertaken for a specific project or are seasonal. Frederick D. Aragon. J.. hence the appeal. On appeal NLRC reversed the decision affirmed in toto by CA. Labor Arbiter found respondent company liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner.: 147816. Liberato Gomez. the employment is considered regular as long as the activity exists. publisher of "The Manila times" hired petitioner as account executive tasked to solicit advertisements for the said news paper. it not being indispensable that he be first issued a regular appointment or be formally declared as such before acquiring a regular status. where such person has rendered at least one year of service. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. In return he will receive commission equivalent to 15% on direct advertisements subject to tax deductions. Date: May 9. Admittedly. Furthermore he receives a monthly allowance of 2000 if he meets the quota. Gocongwei. Robina Y. company's president acceded that petitioners work is of great importance in the survival of the company being the advertisements solicited by the petitioner are the lifeblood of the company. it states that either party may terminate the contract after 30 days notice.Go and Alda Iglesia Ponente: VITUG. Issue: Whether on not petitioner in an employee of said company? Whether or not the dismissal was proper? Held: The prime question here is whether petitioner is a regular employee or not. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 145 .

A lawful dismissal must meet both substantive and procedural requirements. and it will not countenance any attempt to subvert its spirit and intent. often scarcely provides him real and better options. The second question is whether the dismissal is justified. but also on the basis of the nature of the work petitioner has been called upon to perform. where the scales generally tip against the employee. SC set aside the decision of CA which affirmed the decision of NLRC and reinstated the original decision of the labor arbiter with modifications by deleting the award of moral damage there being no proof that the dismissal was done in bad faith. The law. The sheer inequality that characterizes employer-employee relations. the dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with the rudimentary due process of notice and hearing. A stipulation in an agreement can be ignored as and when it is utilized to deprive the employee of his security of tenure. The law affords protection to an employee. in fine. does so. It is not shown that respondent company has fully bothered itself with either of these requirements in terminating the services of petitioner. in defining their contractual relationship.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Respondent company cannot seek refuge under the terms of the agreement it has entered into with petitioner. The notice of termination recites no valid or just cause for the dismissal of petitioner nor does it appear that he has been given an opportunity to be heard in his defense. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 146 . not necessarily or exclusively upon the terms of their written or oral contract.

Chan Robles virtual library. No copy in the SCRA. lawphil. the latter necessarily exercised control over the performed by petitioners. Pakyaw workers are considered employees as long as the employer exercises control over the means by which such workers are to perform their work inside private respondents farm. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 147 . NLRC G. Furthermore. They only report on certain seasons.: 76723 Date: March 25.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. 1990 Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: NOTE: No available full text. SC e-library.R. Held: The elements of the four-fold test are present in the case at bar. However they do not work everyday all through out the year because of the nature of the work they perform. Since private respondent started to hire them until their dismissal they never stopped working every year. Facts: Petitioner rendered services important for the cultivation of respondents farm. does not make petitioners independent contractors. the nature of their employment. which is Pakyaw basis. Issue: Whether or not petitioners are considered as employees or respondent. NO. Darwin A: 2011-0125 Case Title: ZAMUDIO VS. Never the less every year they come to do the same work.

Such omission cannot be taken against petitioner. but who are rehired every working season are considered regular employees. Seasonal workers whose work is not merely for the duration of the season. The absence of the petitioners name in the payroll does not negate the fact of employer-employee relationship. Omission of petitioners in the payroll was not within their control. they had no hand in the preparation of the payroll. as there are other factual bases to establish the presence of such relationship. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 148 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION The seasonal nature of petitioner’s work does not detract from the existence employer – employee relationship.

Private respondents. The work of private respondents is clearly related to. normally twice a year.R. Hon. and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the result of the work to be done and to the means and methods by which the work to be done and to the ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 149 . These findings were sustained by the NLRC. 2011-0125 Case Title: Zanotte Shoes vs. al. all extant in the case at bench. J. The critteria used for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.: 100665 Date: February 13. that factual findings of the NLRC. (c) the power of dismissal. we see no reason for disturbing the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between herein private parties. are accorded respect. one in June (coinciding with the opening of school classes) and another in December (during the Christmas holidays). include (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. Respondents alleged that they were dismissed from work when they demanded to the respondent to make them members of SSS and increase in their pay rates. and in the pursuit of.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Delatado. Petitioners. (b) the payment of wages. Held: Once again the Supreme Court emphasized. particularly when they coincide with that of the Labor Arbiter. if not finality. according to petitioners. the principal business activity of petitioners.: Facts: Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioner Zanotte Shoes owned by Leonardo Lorenzo for illegal dismissal and other monetary claim. and will not be disturbed absent any showing that substantial evidence which might otherwise affect the result of the case has been discarded. claimed that their business operations were only seasonal. in turn. when heavy job orders would come in. 1995 Petitioner: Zanotte Shoes/Leonardo Lorenzo Respodents: NLRC. he rendered his findings in favor of the respondents sustaining the claim that indeed there exists an employer-employee relationship and ordered also the petitioner to pay respondents their respective separation pay. In the case at bar. Joseph Lluz et. No. were engaged on purely contractual basis and paid the rates conformably with their respective agreements. Issue: Whether on not the NLRC erred in sustaining the decision of the Labor arbiter finding the existence of employer-employee relationship and the award of separation pay. After the labor Arbiter's investigation. however later the monetary claims were dropped with the respondents concentrating on the issue of illegal dismissal. thus this petition. Darwin A. Benigno Villarente. There being no obvious manifestation that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of its discretion in arriving at its conclusion. NLRC G. Ponente: VITUG.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 150 . While the court sustained the finding of the NLRC. Where-in fact petitioner has insisted his willingness to rehire respondents but they have steadfastly refused the offer. it did not however consider the award of separation pay there being no actual dismissal nor abandonment. The reckoning point is the existence of the right to control but not the actual exercise of the right to control.

SR.. Retention Limits. reading: Section 6. 6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability of P. 27. now Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). 2011-0248 ALITA VS COURT OF APPEALS GR No 78517 February 27. Conrado Estrella as then Minister of Agrarian Reform. REYES and FE M. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like those of the property in question. relying on the provisions of P. The newly promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No. and the State which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness is under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right. but petitioners refuse to vacate. JR. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens to their homes and to the things necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. ENRIQUE M. 141. PAZ M.D. 27 decrees that the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social legislation. Held: P. They have a right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human beings. 1989 Petitioner(s): GABINO ALITA.D. Emilson O.D. P. REYES. JESUS JULIAN. such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. Macarambon as Regional Director of MAR Region IX. However. Issue: Whether the lands obtained through homestead patent are covered by the Agrarian Reform under P.D. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 151 . Private respondents instituted a complaint against Hon. 141.D. Private respondents herein are desirous of personally cultivating these lands. VICENTE RICALDE and ROLANDO SALAMAR Respondent(s): HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. REYES Ponente: J.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez.. PEDRO RICALDE. Letters of Instructions and General Orders issued in connection therewith as inapplicable to homestead lands.D. PARAS Facts: Two parcels of land were acquired by private respondents' predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 316 and appurtenant regulations issued by the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR). and herein petitioners for the declaration of P. 27 and P. The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor.D. a remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the Constitution. JESUS JULIAN. 27 and all other Decrees.

. That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.. Provided further.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION . ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 152 .

(Autobus). There are inspectors in bus stops who inspects the passengers. Certainly. Isabela. Isabela. Issue: Whether Bautista is entitled to the grant of service incentive leave pay.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. 124. the punched tickets.R. While he was driving he accidentally bumped the rear portion of Autobus No. As a general rule. the workplace being away from the principal office and whose hours and days of work cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. No. Therefore he is definitely supervised though he is away from the Auto Bus main office. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not mean that just because an employee is paid on commission basis he is already barred to receive service incentive leave pay. management sent him a letter of termination. 2005 Petitioner(s): AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS. representing thirty percent (30%) of the cost of repair of the damaged buses and that despite respondent’s pleas for reconsideration. Held: Bautista is entitled to Service Incentive Leave. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 153 . Inc. 7% of the total gross income per travel.Tuguegarao via Manila and Manila-Tabuk via Baguio.50. Respondent averred that the accident happened because he was compelled by the management to go back to Roxas. He has a specific route to traverse as a bus driver and that is a specific place that he needs to be at work. There are inspectors hired by Auto Bus to constantly check him. INC Respondent(s): ANTONIO BAUTISTA Ponente: J. and the driver. Emilson O. 156367 May 16. on a twice a month basis. employees including drivers cannot be said to be field personnel despite the fact that they are performing work away from the principal office of the employee. The question actually boils down to whether or not Bautista is a field employee. 2011-0248 AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEM INC VS BAUTISTA G. Bautista is not a field employee. If required to be at specific places at specific times.CHICO-NAZARIO Facts: Respondent Antonio Bautista has been employed by petitioner Auto Bus Transport Systems. Bautista instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims for nonpayment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay against Autobus. as he had just arrived in Manila from Roxas. After a month. ‘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. Baguio. as driver-conductor with travel routes Manila-Tuguegarao via Baguio. the same was ignored by management. Respondent further alleged that he was not allowed to work until he fully paid the amount of P75. hence. Respondent was paid on commission basis. According to Article 82 of the Labor Code. although he had not slept for almost 24 hours. field personnel are those whose performance of their job/service is not supervised by the employer or his representative. they are paid specific amount for rendering specific service or performing specific work.551.

INC. Citing Brent School. PANGANIBAN Facts: Complainants worked as cargador at the warehouse and ricemills of Private Respondent Corfarm. vs.” where petitioner’s members will be regular employees not only of respondents but also of several other rice mills. Moreover. in his capacity as union president Respondent(s): UNDERSECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. equipment. It also wielded the power of dismissal over the petitioners. It is undeniable that petitioner's members worked as cargadores for private respondent. there was no superintendent-in-charge to give orders. they formed their union. INC. It attributes error to the Solicitor General's reliance on Art. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Issue: Whether the street-hired cargadores are considered as regular employees. and work premises among others. RAPISORA and HERMINIO RABANG Ponente: J. and/or TEODY C. 2011-0248 CAURDANETAAN PIECE WORKERS UNION VS LAGUESMA G. Corfarm replaced them with non-members of the union. equipment and paraphernalia issued by Cofarm for loading and unloading. Clearly. Furthermore. As cargadores. 1998 Petitioner(s): CAURDANETAAN PIECE WORKERS UNION. Finally. Emilson O. represented by JUANITO P. 114911 February 24. No. nor tools. They were paid by Corfarm on a piece-rate basis. LAGUESMA and CORFARM GRAINS. JR. machineries. Zamora. They loaded. Corfarm submits that the OSG’s position is negated by the fact that “petitioner’s members contracted for loading and unloading services with respondent company when such work was available and when they felt like it. that petitioner's members have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools. the workers are not independent contractors. and there were no gate passes issued.R. Respondent Corfarm denies that it had the power of control over the complainants rationalizing that they were street-hired workers engaged from time to time to do loading and unloading work.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. unloaded and piled sacks of palay from the warehouse to the cargo trucks and those brought by cargo trucks for delivery to different places. where they were allegedly also under service. Inc. necessary and vital to the operations of Cofarm. Cofarm did not even allege. COSTALES. When Corfarm denied them some benefits. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 154 . said respondent did not contradict petitioner's allegation that it paid wages directly to these workers without the intervention of any third party independent contractor. Held: The court considers the cargadores as regular employee. 280 of the Labor Code. they loaded. unloaded and piled sacks of palay from the warehouses to the cargo trucks and from the cargo trucks to the buyers. CORFARM GRAINS.. This work is directly related. private respondent asserts that a literal application of such article will result in “absurdity. much less prove.

50 they paid for the use of the jeepneys. and the drivers. owner of the jeeps.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. In the event that they did not earn more. are the fact that he does not pay them any fixed wage but their compensation is the excess of the total amount of fares earned or collected by them over and above the amount of P7. Unable to get the spouses to recognize said defendants as employees instead of lessees and to bargain with it on that basis. These two features are not. Held: In a similar case (NLRC vs DINGLASAN 98 PHIL 649). intimidation and violence. Court held that a driver of a jeep who operates the same under the boundary system is considered an employee within the meaning of the law and as such the case comes under the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. NICOLAS ROJO. 2011-0248 CITIZENS' LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS ET AL VS ABBAS G. the relationship of lessor and lessee cannot be sustained ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 155 . the owner did not have to pay them anything. who were drivers of the spouses in said business. between them from that of employer-employee. Emilson O. from interfering with its operation. members of the petitioner union. DIZON Facts: Respondents-spouses are owners and operators of auto-calesas. because the estimated earnings for fares must be over and above the amount they agreed to pay to the respondent for a ten-hour shift or ten-hour a day operation of the jeeps. and the fact that the gasoline burned by the jeeps is for the account of the drivers. No. The only features that would make the relationship of lessor and lessee between the respondent. Not having any interest in the business because they did not invest anything in the acquisition of the jeeps and did not participate in the management thereof. Dinglasan was the owner and operator of TPU jeepneys which were driven by petitioner under verbal contracts that they will pay P7. however. In that case. the Union declared a strike and since then had paralyzed plaintiffs' business operations through threats. Their day's earnings were the excess over the P7. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao and TEOFILO GERONIMO and EMERITA MENDEZ Ponente: J.R. their service as drivers of the jeeps being their only contribution to the business. The complaint alleged that the defendants used to lease the auto-calesas of the spouses on a daily rental basis. L-21212 September 23. MACAPANTON ABBAS.50 which they agreed to pay to the respondent. 1966 Petitioner(s): CITIZENS' LEAGUE OF FREEWORKERS and/or BALBINO EPIS. They filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Davao to restrain the Union and its members.50 for 10 hours use under the so called "boundary system. ET AL Respondent(s): HON. Issues: Whether employer-employee relationship exists between respondents-spouses and the individual petitioners. sufficient to withdraw the relationship." The drivers did not receive salaries or wages from the owner.

1966 Petitioner(s): FEATI UNIVERSITY Respondent(s): HON. it being an educational institution. thru counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground that the CIR has no jurisdiction over the case. because (1) the Industrial Peace Act is not applicable to the University. 2011-0248 FEATI UNIVERSITY VS HON. wrote a letter to the President of the Faculty Club demanding proof of its majority status and designation as a bargaining representative. and FEATI UNIVERSITY FACULTY CLUB-PAFLU Ponente: J. ZALDIVAR Facts: The private respondent wrote a letter to president of petitioner informing her of the organization of the Faculty Club into a registered labor union. On that very same day. President of the Faculty Club sent another letter containing twenty-six demands that have connection with the employment of the members of the Faculty Club by the University. and requesting an answer within ten days from receipt thereof. Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations. requesting that she be given at least thirty days to study thoroughly the different phases of the demands. the University. 875. JOSE S. and (2) the presidential certification is violative of Section 10 of the Industrial Peace Act. Jose S.R. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 156 . President of the Philippines certified to the Court of Industrial Relations the dispute between the management of the University and the Faculty Club pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of Republic Act No. The University filed a motion for reconsideration by the CIRen banc. Meanwhile counsel for the University. L-21278 December 27. in violation of the return-to-work order. Faculty Club filed with the CIR in Case 41-IPA a petition to declare in contempt of court certain parties. without the motion for reconsideration having been acted upon by the CIR en banc. nor to the members of the Faculty Club. President of the Faculty Club filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor alleging as reason therefore the refusal of the University to bargain collectively. Members of the Faculty Club declared a strike and established picket lines in the premises of the University. resulting in the disruption of classes in the University. they being independent contractors. respondent Judge set the case for hearing but the University moved the cancellation of the said hearing upon the ground that the court en banc should first hear the motion for reconsideration and resolve the issues raised therein before the case is heard on the merits but denied. alleging that the University refused to accept back to work the returning strikers. Emilson O. The parties were called to conferences but efforts to conciliate them failed. as the University is not an industrial establishment and there was no industrial dispute which could be certified to the CIR. The President of the University answered the two letters. No. however. The Judge endeavored to reconcile the part and it was agreed upon that the striking faculty members would return to work and the University would readmit them under a status quo arrangement. The University filed its opposition to the petition for contempt by way of special defense that there was still the motion for reconsideration which had not yet been acted upon by the CIR en banc. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss. BAUTISTA and FEATI UNIVERSITY FACULTY CLUB-PAFLU G. to whom the demands were referred. Bautista.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez.

that the professors’ work is characterized by regularity and continuity for a fixed duration. and that the professors can be laid off if their work is found not satisfactory. who are under contract to teach particular courses and are paid for their services. Professors and instructors are not independent contractors. and when and where to teach. which constitutes the test. but the right to control. that a university prescribes the courses or subjects that professors teach. rather than by profits. Based on RA 875 Section 2(c) The term employer include any person acting in the interest of an employer. the University is operated for profit hence included in the term of employer. Professors and instructors. that the professors and/or instructors cannot substitute others to do their work without the consent of the university. university controls the work of the members of its faculty. that professors are compensated for their services by wages and salaries. and professors are. All these indicate that the university has control over their work. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 157 . are employees under the Industrial Peace Act. The principal consideration in determining whether a workman is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the manner of doing the work. In this case. and it is not the actual exercise of the right of interfering with the work. but shall not include any labor organization (otherwise than when acting as an employer) or any one acting in the capacity or agent of such labor organization.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Issue: Whether FEATI is an employer within the purview of the Industrial Peace Act. therefore. directly or indirectly. Held: The Supreme Court denied the petition. employees and not independent contractors.

J. INC vs NLRC G. ROBLES. coat or shirt as specified by the customer. sewer or "plantsadora" to take the customer's measurements. (3) the power of dismissal. BASCO. nonpayment of overtime work. Emilson O.. Supervision is actively manifested in all these aspects — the manner and quality of cutting. National Capital Region). SANDIGAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SANDIGAN)-TUCP and its members. JACINTO GARCIANO. BELEN N. 1989 Petitioner(s): MAKATI HABERDASHERY. and to sew the pants. ESTRABO. LILY OPINA. They were required to work from or before 9:30am up to 6-7pm from Monday to Saturday and during peak periods even on Sundays and holidays. INC. 83380-81 November 15. the latter directs an employee who may be a tailor. CEFERINA J. MERILYN A. Issue: Whether employer .R. VEVENCIO TIRO. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of complainants which the NLRC affirmed. It is the so called "control test" that is the most important element. DIMPAS. nonpayment of holiday pay and othe money claims. ALFREDO C. pattern maker. Department of Labor and Employment. 2011-0248 MAKATI HABERDASHERY. basters and plantsadoras. sewing and ironing.00 provided they report for work before 9:30am everyday. when a customer enters into a contract with the haberdashery or its proprietor. EUGENIO L. they were given daily allowance of P3. ESTER NARVAEZ. VISTA. The Sandigan ng Manggagawang Pilipino filed a complaint for underpayment of the basic wage. LEONORA MENDOZA. underpayment of living allowance. VICTORIO Y. Held: The test of employer-employee relationship is four-fold: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. DIOSANA (Labor Arbiter. (2) the payment of wages. They were paid on a piece-rate basis except two who were paid on a monthly basis. FERNAN Facts: Individual complainants have been working for Makati Haberdashery Inc. In addition to their piece-rate. as tailors. JORGE LEDESMA and CECILIO G. The facts at bar indubitably reveal that the most important requisite of control is present.employee relationship is present between petitioners and its workers. GLORIA ESTRABO. ALEJANDRO A. As gleaned from the operations of petitioner. This simply means the determination of whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee not only as to the result of the work but also as to the means and method by which the same is to be accomplished. JOSEFINA ALCOCEBA and MARIA ANGELES Ponente: C. JANET SANGDANG. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 158 . VIRAY. CASIMIRO ZAPATA. Nos. Petitioner urged that the NLRC erred in concluding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the workers. and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct. sewers. INOCENCIO Respondent(s): NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. seamsters. MACARIA G. LAURETO.

00 daily if they report for work before 9:30 a. to 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. and which is forfeited when they arrive at or after 9:30 a. it is evident that petitioner has reserved the right to control its employees not only as to the result but also the means and methods by which the same are to be accomplished.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Assistant Manager also issued a memorandum on new procedures to be followed.m. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 159 .m.m. That private respondents are regular employees is further proven by the fact that they have to report for work regularly from 9:30 a. and are paid an additional allowance of P 3.

which is primarily engaged in the distribution and exhibition. and when they refused. associate producers must have tools. they must then be engaged in the business of making motion pictures. Held: Private respondents insist that petitioners are project employees of associate producers who. and performing other tasks that the cameraman and or director may assign. RAYALA and Commissioner VICTORIANO R. It is thus clear that the associate producer merely leases the equipment from VIVA.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 160 . Assuming that the associate producers are job contractors. VIC DEL ROSARIO and VIVA FIMS Ponente: J. VIVA likewise owns the trucks used to transport the equipment. DAVIDE JR Facts: Petitioners Maraguinot and Enero maintain that they were employed by VIVA Films as part of their filming crew. their services were terminated. However. These include generators. and arranging movie equipment in the shooting area as instructed by the cameraman. act as independent contractors. 2011-0248 MARAGUINOT AND ENERO VS NLRC AND VIVA FILMS G. It is settled that the contracting out of labor is allowed only in case of job contracting. AQUINO. the associate producers here have none of these. work premises. but not the making of movies. 1998 Petitioner(s): ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT. Their tasks consist of loading. Hence they say. in turn. assisting in the fixing of the lighting system. Private respondents' evidence reveals that the movie-making equipment are supplied to the producers and owned by VIVA. 120969 January 22. they were asked to sign a blank employment contract. On the other hand. Emilson O. VIVA Films and Del Rosario contend that the petitioners are project the employees of associate producers who in turn. Sometime in May 1992." in fact. Petitioners filed a suit for illegal dismissal. private respondents claim that VIVA Films is the trade name of VIVA Productions Inc. and other materials necessary to make motion pictures. The respondents further assert that they contract with persons called producers to produce or make movies. Private respondent Del Rosario asserts that he is merely an executive producer or the financier who invests money for the production of movies to be distributed and exhibited by VIVA. cables and wooden platforms. equipment. JR. Maraguinot and Enero asked that their salary be adjusted to the minimum wage rate. No. Instead of getting a pay increase.R. and to be a job contractor under the preceding description. unloading. returning the equipment to VIVA Films' warehouse. machinery. In the same vein. petitioners are not employees of VIVA Films or of the executive producers. act as independent contractors. cameras and "shooting equipment. Commissioner ROGELIO I. Issue: Whether complainants are to be considered as employees of the respondents. and PAULINO ENERO Respondent(s): NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) composed of Presiding Commissioner RAUL T. CALAYCAY (Ponente). As such.

it is VIVA's corporate name which appears on the heading of the appointment slip. then these producers can only be "labor-only" contractors. What likewise tells against VIVA is that it paid petitioners' salaries as evidenced by vouchers. not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods to accomplish the same. In the instant case. the law considers the person or entity engaged in the same a mere agent or intermediary of the direct employer. These four elements are present here. (c) the power of dismissal. namely: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. Shooting Unit Supervisor and an employee of VIVA.the appointment slip does not indicate that it was the producer or associate producer who hired the crew members. whose business is to "make" movies. Notably.." The means and methods to accomplish the result are likewise controlled by VIVA. it was Juanita Cesario. the employment relationship between petitioners and producers is actually one between petitioners and VIVA. defined by the Labor Code. As labor-only contracting is prohibited. The relationship between VIVA and its producers or associate producers seems to be that of agency. and additional expenses must be justified. (b) the payment of wages. for that purpose. who recruited crew members from an available group of free-lance workers which includes the complainants Maraguinot and Enero. recruit nor hire the workers.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION If private respondents insist that the associate producers are labor contractors. containing VIVA's letterhead. and (d) the employer's power to control of the employee's conduct. the "eyes and ears" of VIVA and del Rosario. The employer-employee relationship between petitioners and VIVA can further be established by the "control test. as the latter make movies on behalf of VIVA. VIVA's control is evident in its mandate that the end result must be a "quality film acceptable to the company. intervenes in the movie-making process by assisting the associate producer in solving problems encountered in making the film." While four elements are usually considered in determining the existence of an employment relationship. certain scenes are subject to change to suit the taste of the company. with the latter being the direct employer. moreover. viz. the most important element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct. thus the inevitable conclusion is that petitioners are employees only of VIVA ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 161 . All the circumstances indicate an employment relationship between petitioners and VIVA alone. But even by the preceding standards. the associate producers of VIVA cannot be considered labor-only contractors as they did not supply. As such. the movie project must be finished within schedule without exceeding the budget. and the Supervising Producer.

rest day and holiday pay.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. Issue: Whether supervisory employees. With the implementation of the JE Program. the following adjustments were made: (1) the members of respondent union were re-classified under levels S-5 to S-8 which are considered managerial staff for purposes of compensation and benefits. a corporation which is fully owned and controlled by the Government.00 per month) in basic pay compared to the highest paid rank-and-file employee. they do not participate in the formulation of management policies nor in the hiring or firing of employees. from rank-and-file to department heads. rest day and holiday pay allegedly in violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code. Emilson O. their responsibilities do not require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment. the members of respondent union were treated in the same manner as rank-and file employees. Respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter on the ground that the members of respondent union are not managerial employees.00 per month. 1988. with the union members now enjoying a wide gap (P1. Respondent NLRC declared that these supervisory employees are merely exercising recommendatory powers subject to the evaluation. rest day and holiday pay. (PACIWU) TUCP Ponente: J. therefore. and hence are not entitled to overtime rest day and holiday pay. 50. operates 3 sugar refineries located at Bukidnon. (3) longevity pay was increased on top of alignment adjustments. as defined under Article 212 (m) of the Labor Code and. (5) there was a grant of P100. On June 1. 1993 Petitioner(s): NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION Respondent(s): NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NBSR SUPERVISORY UNION. Executive Labor Arbiter decided in favour of labor. the members of herein respondent union filed a complainant with the executive labor arbiter for non-payment of overtime. As such.00 allowance for rest day/holiday work. 1992 pursuant to Proclamation No. (4) they were entitled to increased company COLA of P225.R. As a result. REGALADO Facts: Petitioner National Sugar Refineries Corporation. and their main function is to carry out the ready policies and plans of the corporation. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 162 . they used to be paid overtime. petitioner implemented a Job Evaluation (JE) Program affecting all employees. 2011-0248 NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORP VS NLRC G. should be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff. review and final action by their department heads.We glean from the records that for about ten years prior to the JE Program. The Batangas refinery was privatized on April 11. Two years after the implementation of the JE Program. and all employees including the members of respondent union were granted salary adjustments and increases in benefits commensurate to their actual duties and functions. they are entitled to overtime. Iloilo and Batangas.269. No. (2) there was an increase in basic pay of the average of 50% of their basic pay prior to the JE Program. all positions were re-evaluated. 101761 March 24.

Rule I Book III of the aforestated Rules to Implement the Labor Code. recommends disciplinary actions etc. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 163 . under general supervision. experience. under general supervision. controlling communicating and in making decisions in attaining the company's set goals and objectives.: (1) their primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of their employer. work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training. their duties and functions include. the following operations whereby the employee assist the department superintendent. (5) they execute.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: A cursory perusal of the Job Value Contribution Statements of the union members will readily show that these supervisory employees are under the direct supervision of their respective department superintendents and that generally they assist the latter in planning. organizing. Perforce. More specifically. staffing. (3) they regularly and directly assist the managerial employee whose primary duty consist of the management of a department of the establishment in which they are employed (4) they execute. exempt from the coverage of Article 82. we are constrained to agree with petitioner that the union members should be considered as officers and members of the managerial staff and are. therefore. or knowledge. and (6) they do not devote more than 20% of their hours worked in a work-week to activities which are not directly and clearly related to the performance of their work hereinbefore described. rest day and holiday. viz. (2) they customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. These supervisory employees are likewise responsible for the effective and efficient operation of their respective departments. as defined in Section 2. special assignments and tasks. directing. It is apparent that the members of respondent union discharge duties and responsibilities which ineluctably qualify them as officers or members of the managerial staff. among others. they are not entitled to overtime. trains and guides subordinates. Under the facts obtaining in this case.

was not registered and therefore. formed an unregistered association envisioned to deal more effectively with the company that buys their banana produce. in fact hired by the individual landowner members who were the ones paying the SSS contributions of the workers. FRANCISCO BAUG. MARTIN ORDONO. ANTONIO PAQUIT. It claimed that the workers were hired by the individual landowner members and therefore they were employees of the landowners. REBECCA MOREN. ERNIE COLON. canal maintenance. did not have any legal personality of its own. about 20 workers were dismissed by the association. althought they were. EUSTIQUIO GELDO. The association denied the existence of employer-employee relationship. No. EUGENIO BETICAN. 1998 Petitioner(s): ORLANDO FARM GROWERS ASSOCIATION/GLICERIO AÑOVER Respondent(s): NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIFTH DIVISION). ESTHER BONGGOT. Furthermore. JR. 2011-0248 ORLANDO FARM GROWERS VS NLRC G. However. engaged in the production of export quality bananas. JOEL PIAMONTE. The association. the association claimed that it was merely an unregistered association with no legal personality of its own and formed solely by the landowner members. LEOCADIO ORDONO. Emilson O. called Orlando Farm Growers. with respect to technical services. TITO ORDONO. harvesters. VIRGINIA BUSANO. The workers filed individual suits for illegal dismissal with reinstatement and money claims. Otherwise it would bring about a situation where employees are denied not only redress of their grievances but also the protection and benefits accorded them by law if their employer happens to be simply an unregistered association.R. EDILMIRO ALDION. Issue: Whether the Association is the employer of the workers and not the individual landowner members. DANNY SAM. FEDERICO PASTOLERO. The association's workers performed as packers. ROMERO Facts: The Landowners. among other services. FE ORDONO. 129076 November 25. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 164 . irrigation and pest control. etc. Held: The Labor Code defines an employer as any person who acts in the interest of an employer directly or indirectly. it was authorized to transact business and carry out certain activities in the interest of the individual landowner members.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. and disciplinary measures. MARCELINA HONTIVEROS. The association issued identification cards to the workers and memoranda or circulars regarding absences of workers. Later. and BERNARDO OPERIO Ponente: J. The law does not require an employer be registered in order to be considered as an employer.

In the case at bench. Thus. not the individual landowner members. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 165 . The Association was vested with powers to settle and pay the claims of the workers. it performed the role of an employer to its workers.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION An employer-employee relationship can be determined using the four fold test. it is the Association that is deemed the employer of the workers. it was the Association which issued memoranda and circulars regarding employees' conduct and their identification cards. While the original purpose in the formation of the Association was to provide the landowners with a unified voice in effectively dealing with the buying company. it exceeded its avowed intentions when by its subsequent actions.

Peñaranda now claims that BPC still needed to pay him his overtime pays and premium pays. managerial employees are those that perform the following: 1) Their primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or subdivision thereof. Peñaranda was hired by Baganga Plywood Corporation.J. 2011-0248 PENARANDA VS BANGANGA PLYWOOD CORP G. to supervise. He was tasked to supply the required and continuous steam to all consuming units at minimum cost. managerial staffs are those that perform the following: The primary duty consists of the performance of work directly related to management policies of the employer. or disciplinary action. Held: Though there is an error made by the NLRC in finding Peñaranda as a managerial employee. 159577 May 3. to train new employees for effective and safety while working. The NLRC ruled that Peñaranda is a managerial employee and as such he is not entitled to overtime and premium pay as stated under the Labor Code. Peñaranda appealed. Peñaranda does not meet the above requirements. owned by Hudson Chua. He contends that he is not a managerial employee. 2) They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein. Emilson O. Peñaranda is instead considered as a managerial staff. BPC subsequently reopened but Peñaranda did not reapply. Peñaranda was employed as a Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer. BPC gave him his separation benefits. Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code. PANGANIBAN Facts: In June 1999. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 166 . the Supreme Court still ruled that Peñaranda is not entitled to overtime and premium pay. 2006 Petitioner(s): CHARLITO PEÑARANDA Respondent(s): BAGANGA PLYWOOD CORPORATION and HUDSON CHUA Ponente: C. No. Peñaranda is not a managerial employee. and to recommend personnel actions such as: promotion. Issue: Whether Peñaranda is entitled to overtime and premium pay.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. In 2001. or their suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight. BPC shut down due to some repairs and maintenance. to evaluate performance of machinery and manpower. BPC did not technically fire Peñaranda but due to the latter’s insistence. to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler.R. 3) They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank. Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code. check and monitor manpower workmanship as well as operation of boiler and accessories.

” Peñaranda’s function as a shift engineer illustrates that he was a member of the managerial staff. Further. (2). This work necessarily required the use of discretion and independent judgment to ensure the proper functioning of the steam plant boiler. His duties and responsibilities conform to the definition of a member of a managerial staff under the Implementing Rules. or (iii) execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks. or (ii) execute under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training. and 4) who do not devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of the work described in paragraphs (1). or knowledge.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION 2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. His work involved overseeing the operation of the machines and the performance of the workers in the engineering section. experience. Peñaranda in his position paper admitted that he was a supervisor for BPC. As supervisor. Peñaranda supervised the engineering section of the steam plant boiler. 3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or subdivision thereof. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 167 . and (3) above. petitioner is deemed a member of the managerial staff.

When. The case of Pajarillo vs. their services were terminated. petitioners were paid on percent commission basis in cash. the elements that are generally considered are the following (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. chief engineer. SSS. not the actual exercise of the right. they received 13% of the proceeds of the sale of the fishcatch if the total proceeds exceeded the cost of crude oil consumed during the fishing trip. Otherwise. RUGA. ELADIO CALDERON. (c) the power of dismissal. the court have generally relied on the so-called right-of-control test where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. From the 4 elements mentioned. they received 10% of the total proceeds of the sale. L-72654-61 January 22. PHILIP CERVANTES and ELEUTERIO BARBIN Respondent(s): NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DE GUZMAN FISHING ENTERPRISES and/or ARSENIO DE GUZMAN Ponente: C. In the absence of hiring. that they simply join every trip for which the pilots allow them. 1990 Petitioner(s): ALIPIO R. and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. JOSE PARMA.R. (b) the payment of wages. Petitioners rendered service aboard the fishing vessel in various capacities as patron or pilots. that the boat-owners do not in any way control the crew-members with whom the former have no relationship whatsoever. JAIME BARBIN.J. that they go out to sea not upon directions of the boat-owners. Issue: Whether employer-employee exists between respondents and petitioners.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. and that they only share in their own catch produced by their own efforts. where the Court found that the pilots therein are not under the order of the boat-owners as regards their employment. without any reference to the owners of the vessel. no actual employer-employee relation could exist. second fisherman. For services rendered in respondent's regular business of trawl fishing. express or implied. chief engineer. No. and fisherman-winchman received a minimum income of P260 per week. but upon their own volition as to when. Held: Court ruled that in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. 2011-0248 RUGA ET AL VS NLRC G. Emilson O. for some unproved charges. how long and where to go fishing. the fishermen filed illegal dismissal complaint. FERNAN Facts: Petitioners were the fishermen-crew members of one of the several fishing vessels owned by respondent De Guzman Fishing Ent. master fisherman. As agreed upon. NICANOR FRANCISCO. invoked by the public respondent as authority for the ruling that a "joint fishing venture" existed between private respondent and petitioners is not applicable in the instant case. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 168 . supra. second fisherman and fisherman. The test calls merely for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work. The patron or pilot. The vessel owners contended that they were not employees at all. There is neither light of control nor actual exercise of such right on the part of the boatowners in the Pajarillo case. LAURENTE BAUTU. and master fisherman received a minimum income of P350 per week while the assistant engineer. The employment relation arises from contract of hire.

Such compensation falls within the scope and meaning of the term "wage" as defined under Article 97(f) of the Labor Code. petitioners received instructions via a single-side band radio from private respondent's operations manager who called the patron/pilot in the morning. the patron/pilot of 7/B Sandyman II. The conduct of the fishing operations was undisputably shown by the testimony of Ruga. They are told to report their activities. to be under the control and supervision of private respondent's operations manager. Matters dealing on the fixing of the schedule of the fishing trip and the time to return to the fishing port were shown to be the prerogative of private respondent. 13% of the proceeds of the sale if the total proceeds exceeded the cost of the crude oil consumed during the fishing trip. their position. Aside from performing activities usually necessary and desirable in the business of private respondent. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 169 .e. While performing the fishing operations. and the number of tubes of fish-catch in one day. otherwise only 10% of the proceeds of the sale. As distinguished from the Pajarillo case where the crew members are under no obligation to remain in the outfit for any definite period as one can be a crew member of an outfit for one day and be the crew member of othe crew of another vessel the next day. the petitioners were directly hired by private respondent for a period of 8-15 years in various capacities. it must be noted that petitioners received compensation on a percentage commission based on the gross sale of the fish-catch i.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION The aforementioned circumstances obtaining in Pajarillo case do not exist in the instant case.

Indeed. working as a truck helper. they determined private respondent’s wages and rest day. petitioners owned and operated a trucking business since the 1950s and by their own allegations.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. Issue: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and respondent Sahot. 142293 February 27. Records of the case show that private respondent actually engaged in work as an employee. There was no written agreement. 2003 Petitioner(s): VICENTE SY. As found by the appellate court. TRINIDAD PAULINO. When he inquired with the SSS. first as a fire truck helper and later as truck driver. and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. He merely followed instructions of petitioners and was content to do so. said the CA. COURT OF APPEALS and JAIME SAHOT Ponente: J. that could not resume his work. (b) the payment of wages. private respondent had worked as a truck helper and driver of petitioners not for his own pleasure but under the latter’s control. and SBT1 TRUCKING CORPORATION Respondent(s): HON. SC questioned how a 23 year old man. Hence the Court ruled that complainant was only an employee. he learned that the trucking company never paid his SSS premiums. Held: It shows that the complainant was only 23 years old when he started working with respondent as truck helper. The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 170 . During the entire course of his employment he did not have the freedom to determine where he would go. until 1994 when at age 59 he was separated for his inability to work due to sickness. but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. and how he would do it. not a partner of respondents from the time complainant started working for respondent. no proof that the complainant received a share in petitioners’ profits. Emilson O. (c) the power of dismissal. not only as to the result of the work to be done. COURT OF APPEALS and SAHOT G. rather. nor was there anything to show he had any participation with respect to the running of the business. be considered an industrial partner. 2011-0248 SY et al VS HON. No. The company contended that he was never an employee but an industrial partner and that he would not have been separated if he returned to his work after his sick leave. what he would do. as long as he was paid his wages.R. The most important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct. it was he. QUISUMBING Facts: Complainant started working with respondent SBT Trucking in 1958 at age 23. 6B’S TRUCKING CORPORATION.

in a letter the respondent arbitrator refused to take cognizance of the case reasoning that he had no more jurisdiction to continue as arbitrator because he had resigned from service. 1986. GUTIERREZ JR Facts: On November 8. Filipro filed a motion for clarification seeking (1) the limitation of the award to three years. vacation and sick leave pay due to the use of 251 days as divisor. Inc. however. are not entitled to holiday pay. On January 14. 1985. Emilson O. that the company's sales personnel are field personnel and. sales representatives. (2) the exclusion of salesmen. (formerly FILIPRO. Both Filipro and the Union of Filipino Employees (UFE) agreed to submit the case for voluntary arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar.) filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a petition for declaratory relief seeking a ruling on its rights and obligations respecting claims of its monthly paid employees for holiday pay in the light of the Court's decision in Chartered Bank Employees Association v. No. (now Nestle Philippines. vacation and sick leave benefits due to the use of 251 divisor. truck drivers. INC. JR. as voluntary arbitrator. INC. Respondent Arbitrator treated the two motions as appeals and forwarded the case to the NLRC which issued a resolution remanding the case to the respondent arbitrator on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to review decisions in voluntary arbitration cases pursuant to Article 263 of the Labor Code. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES. respondent Filipro.R. 1992 Petitioner(s): UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES (UFE) Respondent(s): BENIGNO VIVAR. the date of effectivity of the Labor Code. Ople.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. and that the use of 251 as divisor is an established employee benefit which cannot be diminished. Petitioner UFE answered that the award should be made effective from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code. 1980. and (3) deduction from the holiday pay award of overpayment for overtime. the respondent arbitrator issued an order declaring that the effectivity of the holiday pay award shall retroact to November 1. the divisor should be changed from 251 to 261 and ordered the reimbursement of overpayment for overtime. subject only to the exclusions and limitations specified in Article 82 and such other legal restrictions as are provided for in the Code. Arbitrator Vivar rendered a decision directing Filipro to pay its monthly paid employees holiday pay pursuant to Article 94 of the Code. However. Both Nestle and UFE filed their respective motions for partial reconsideration. night differential. On January 2. 79255 January 20. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 171 . Jr. night differential.. 2011-0248 UNION OF FILIPINO EMPLOYEES VS VIVAR G. that their sales personnel are not field personnel and are therefore entitled to holiday pay. He adjudged. as such.) Ponente: J. 1974. merchandisers and medical representatives from the award of the holiday pay. He likewise ruled that with the grant of 10 days' holiday pay. Inc.

the computation of which are all based on the daily rate. then the dividend. including its implementing rules and regulations. shall be resolved in favor of labor. With this consideration. it would be unfair to impose additional burdens on Nestle when the non-payment of the holiday benefits up to 1984 was not in any way attributed to Nestle's fault." (Article 4). should correspondingly be increased to incorporate the holiday pay. There is thus no merit in respondent Nestle's claim of overpayment of overtime and night differential pay and sick and vacation leave benefits. since the daily rate is still the same before and after the grant of holiday pay." The Court finds that the clause "whose time and performance is unsupervised by the employer" did not amplify but merely interpreted and expounded the clause "whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. may have been moved to grant other concessions to its employees. due to its use of 251 days as divisor must fail in light of the Labor Code mandate that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this Code. The Court thereby resolves that the grant of holiday pay be effective. This possibility is bolstered by the fact that respondent Nestle's employees are among the highest paid in the industry. in order to fully settle the issues. query must be made as to whether or not such employee's time and performance is constantly supervised by the employer. or payment by mistake. in deciding whether or not an employee's actual working hours in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty. relying on the implicit validity of the implementing rule and policy instruction before this Court nullified them. and thinking that it was not obliged to give holiday pay benefits to its monthly paid employees. To maintain the same daily rate if the divisor is adjusted to 261 days. Nevertheless. not from the date of promulgation of the Chartered Bank case nor from the date of effectivity of the Labor Code. it is not far-fetched that Nestle. Said article defines field personnel as "non-agritultural 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. especially in the collective bargaining agreement. the Court resolved to take up the matter of effectivity of the holiday pay award raised by Nestle. The respondent arbitrator's order to change the divisor from 251 to 261 days would result in a lower daily rate which is violative of the prohibition on non-diminution of benefits found in Article 100 of the Labor Code. but from the date of promulgation of the IBAA case." The former clause is still within the scope and purview of Article 82 which defines field personnel. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 172 . Applying the “operative fact”aforementioned doctrine to the case at bar.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Issue: Whether Nestle's sales personnel are entitled to holiday pay Held: Under Article 82. which represents the employee's annual salary. field personnel are not entitled to holiday pay. Hence. Respondent Nestle's invocation of solutio indebiti.

including a penalty of P50. the fact that the "boundary" represented installment payments of the purchase price on the jeepney did not remove the parties’ employer-employee relationship. Bustamante would then become the owner of the vehicle and continue to drive the same under Villamaria’s franchise. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 173 . CALLEJO. in case Bustamante failed to remit the daily boundary-hulog for a period of one week. Issue: Whether employer-employee relations exists Held: The juridical relationship of employer-employee between petitioner and respondent was not negated by the foregoing stipulation in the Kasunduan. Even if the petitioner was allowed to let some other person drive the unit. BUSTAMANTE Ponente: J.00. the Kasunduan would cease to have legal effect and Bustamante would have to return the vehicle to Villamaria Motors. The parties agreed that if Bustamante failed to pay the boundary-hulog for three days. 2006 Petitioner(s): OSCAR VILLAMARIA. but Villamaria allowed him to continue driving the jeepney. that the amount earned in excess of the “boundary hulog” is equivalent to wages.R. In 1999. SR. Facts: Petitioner Villamaria and respondent Bustamante executed a contract entitled “Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Sasakyan sa Pamamagitan ng Boundary-Hulog”.00 a day. Respondent(s): COURT OF APPEALS and JERRY V.. 2000. On July 24. considering that petitioner retained control of respondent’s conduct as driver of the vehicle. No. As agreed upon. Bustamante failed to pay for the annual registration fees of the vehicle. Villamaria took back the jeepney driven by Bustamante and barred the latter from driving the vehicle. 2011-0248 VILLAMARIA vs COURT OF APPEALS and BUSTAMANTE G. He warned the drivers that the Kasunduan would henceforth be strictly enforced and urged them to comply with their obligation to avoid litigation. In view of Villamaria’s supervision and control as employer." reminding them that under the Kasunduan. This prompted Villamaria to serve a "Paalala.00 in payment of the purchase price of the vehicle. and that the fact that the power of dismissal was not mentioned in the Kasunduan did not mean Villamaria never exercised such power. it was not shown that he did so. would mean their respective jeepneys would be returned to him without any complaints. failure to pay the daily boundary-hulog for one week. It was also agreed that Bustamante would make a downpayment of P10. or could not exercise such power. Villamaria Motors would hold on to the vehicle until Bustamante paid his arrears. Bustamante and other drivers who also had the same arrangement with Villamaria Motors failed to pay their respective boundary-hulog. Emilson O. Under the “Kasunduan”.000. respondent would remit to Villarama P550.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Etcubañez. 165881 April 19. that the existence of an employment relation is not dependent on how the worker is paid but on the presence or absence of control over the means and method of the work. Bustamante filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal against Villamaria. JR. he made daily remittances of P550.00 a day for a period of four years. Bustamante continued driving the jeepney under the supervision and control of Villamaria.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners should be entitled to overtime pay? Held: No. whether they were on board and cannot leave the ship beyond the regular 8 – working hours a day. They also claimed that they signed a blank contract. this petition. The Court ruled that entitlement to overtime pay must first be established by proof that said overtime work was actually performed.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. No. entered into separate contracts of employment with the Golden Light Ocean Transport. INC. but whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours. CAGAMPAN ET AL. Petitioners worked from May 7. 85122 . The decision of the NLRC is affirmed with the modification that petitioners Cagampan and Vicera are awarded their leave pay according to the terms of contract.R. For the employer to give him overtime pay for extra bonus hours when he might be sleeping or attending to his personal chores or even just lulling away his time would be extremely unfair and unreasonable. G. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: G. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 174 .: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: JULIO N. before an employee way avail of said benefit. Two (2) petitioners argued that although they were employed as Ordinary Seaman. No. VS. The criterion is determining whether or not seamen are entitled to overtime pay is not. vacation pay and terminal pay against private respondents. all seamen. Inc. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ACE MARITIME AGENCIES. Cagampan NLRC And Ace Maritime Agencies. through its local agency. petitioners collectively and / or individually filed complaints for non – payment of overtime pay.24 March 22. the vessel they really boarded was MV ‘SOIC I’ managed by Columbus Navigation. The contract provision means that the fixed overtime pay 30% would be the basis for computing the overtime pay if and when overtime work would be rendered. 1991 Julio N. although they agreed to work on board the vessel Rio Colorado managed by Golden Light Ocean Transport. Hence. 1985 until July 12. Inc. Also. Paras Facts: Petitioners. Ltd. 1986.R. the Ace Maritime Agencies. they actually performed the work and duties of Able Seaman. Ltd. Later. J..

Sison Ponente: J. 1989 Petitioner: Felix Gonzales And Carmen Gonzales Respondent: Hon. and CA ruled that the plaintiffs are not de jure agricultural tenants. SISON G. petitioners are not entitled to reinstatement under Sec. The Court ruled that an agricultural leasehold cannot be established on land which has ceased to be devoted to cultivation or farming because of its conversion into a residential land. DECEASED SPOUSE ANDRES AGCAOILE AND LEONORA AGCAOILE SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIA A. they cultivated some vacant adjoining lots. COURT OF APPEALS. Deceased Spouse Andres Agcaoile And Leonora Agcaoile Substituted By Lucia A. HON. Aquino Facts: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals Petitioners leased a lot in the subdivision on which they built their house. defendants sent a letter asking them to pay the accrued rentals or vacate the premises. Defendants initiated an action for recovery of possession alleging that the property subject of the action is residential land. 36213 Date: June 29.: G. Plaintiffs filed the present action seeking to elect the leasehold system and praying for a reliquidation of past harvests embracing the agricultural years 1961 – 1962 to 1967 – 1968. They may not claim a right to reinstatement. this petition. and.R. Issue: Whether or not an agricultural tenancy relationship can be created over land embraced in an approved residential subdivision? Held: No. When plaintiffs defaulted renting lot 1285 – M. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 175 . Court Of Appeals.R. No. Grino. No. by tolerance of the subdivision owner. Hence. 36 (1) of RA 3844 for the petitioners were not agricultural lessees or tenants of the land before its conversion into a residential subdivision in 1955. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: FELIX GONZALES AND CARMEN GONZALES VS. Petition denied for lack of merit. Court of Agrarian Relations.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F.

AND HONORABLE LEONARDO QUISIMBING. Inc.R. the two – shift schedule while their CBA was still in force and even prior thereto. 142834 Date: December 19. Inc. a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and packaging pharmaceutical products..R. Petition is denied due course and CA decision is affirmed. and that the employees shall observe such rules as have been laid down by the company. However. It was established that the employees adhered to the said work schedule since 1988. it was unsuccessful so they filed with the Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment a petition for assumption of Jurisdiction. this petition. Motion for reconsideration was denied.. 1993. Later on the respondent company filed with the National Conciliation and Medication Board (NCMB) an urgent request for preventive medication aimed to help the parties in their CBA negotiations. which approved the said report. Espadilla 2011-0091 INTERPHIL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION – FFW. Respondents Company had to adopt a continuous 24 – hour work daily schedule by reason of the nature of business and the demands of its clients. The two shift schedule effectively changed the working hours stipulated in the CBA. Labor Arbiter Caday recommended that herein petitioners are guilty of unfair labor practice for violating the then existing CBA which prohibits the union or any employee during the existence of the CBA from staging a strike or engaging in slow down or interruption of work and ordering them to cease and desist from further committing illegal acts. Hence. Enrico Gonzales And Maria Theresa Montejo. Issue: Whether or not the working hours maybe changed at the direction of the company? Held: Yes. at the discretion of the company. they cannot be heard to claim that the overtime boycott is justified because there were not obliged to work beyond eight hours. The 2 union officers inquired about the duration of the CBA but received no response. Secretary Of Labor And Employment Ponente: J.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. so later on. without any question or compliant. ENRICO GONZALES AND MARIA THERESA MONTEJO VS. Respondent: Interphil Laboratories. INC. And Honorable Leonardo Quisimbing. at 2pm and 2am. INTERPHIL LABORATORIES. 2001 Petitioner: Interphil Laboratories Employees Union – FFW. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT G.. should such change be necessary for its operations.: G. respectively. The Court ruled that the working hours may be changed. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 176 . all the rand – and – file employees of the company refused to follow their 2 shift work schedule of from 6am – 6pm and from 6pm to 6 am. The employees are deemed to have waived the eight – hour schedule since they followed. They had a Collective Bargaining Agreement effective from August 1. As the employees assented by practice to this arrangement. No. No. 1990 – July 31. Kapunan Case Title: Facts: Interphil Laboratories Employees Union – FFW is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank – and – file employees of Interphil Laboratories.

defendant sold his 25 units to La Mallorca. which was after the repeal of Art. wages or remuneration but receiving compensation for his employer uncertain and variable amount depending upon the work done or the result of said work irrespective of the amount of time employed. a transportation company.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. ET AL. Montemayor Facts: Defendant operated a taxi business in which the plaintiffs are employed as mechanics and drivers. Sunday and holidays included? Held: No. The Court ruled that a laborer or employee with no fixed salary. No. PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO. then computation of the month’s salary payable would be impossible. Order appealed is affirmed. JR. Later on. The Court dismissed the complaint because the defendant being engaged in the taxi of transportation business which is a public utility. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 177 .: L-6339 Date: April 20. The alleged termination of services of the plaintiffs by the defendant took place according to the complaint on September 4. is not covered by the eight hour Labor Law and is not entitled to extra compensation should he work in excess of eight hours a day. week or month. without giving said mechanics and drivers 30 days advance notice ant the reason of losing their jobs because La Mallorca did not want to continue them in their employment. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: MANUEL LARA. which determines their commissions. came under the exception provided by the eight hour Labor Law. and because plaintiffs did not work on a salary basis. Issue: Whether or not Plaintiffs are entitled to extra compensation for work performed in excess of eight hours a day. so they had no fixed or regular salary or remuneration other than the 20%. 1950. VS. 1954 Petitioner: Manuel Lara Respondent: Petronilo Del Rosario. it is the result of their labor. 302 refer to employees receiving fixed salary. 302 which they invoke. If the plaintiffs herein had no fixed salary either by the day. Jr Ponente: J. In the case at bar. G.R. Art. not the labor itself. The petition was filed praying to recover compensation for overtime work rendered beyond eight hours and on Sundays and Legal holidays and one month salary because the failure of their former employer to give them notice.

the Court ruled that the employees are only entitled to receive overtime pay for work rendered in excess of 8 hours on ordinary days including Sundays and legal holidays. Modesto Castillo. Bautista. Resolutions of the Court of Industrial Relations appealed from are affirmed with costs against petitioner. In one of the hearing of the case.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. Also. The Hon.. Hence. that the only thing to be done is to determine the meaning and scope of the term “working place”. Claimants rendered services to the Company from 6am to 6pm including Sundays and holidays. shop or boat in order that his period of rest shall not be counted. shop or boat. THE HON. Inc. Lanting Ponente: J.: L – 9265 Date: April 29. to go somewhere else. VS. No. THE HON. which implies either that said laborers were not given any recess at all. Herein respondents filed a petition with the CIR containing the full recognition of the right of Collective bargaining. Jose S. or that they could not rest completely. Jimenez Yanson And The Hon. LANTING. LUZON MARINE DEPARTMENT UNION AND THE HON. If these requires are complied with. Felix Facts: Petition for review on certiorari in the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations. Juan L. this petition. JIMENEZ YANSON and THE HON. whether within or outside the premises of said factory. MODESTO CASTILLO. The Hon. However. the period of such rest shall not be counted. JOSE S. BAUTISTA. 1957 Petitioner: Luzon Stevedoring Co. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS G. JUAN L. or that they were not allowed to leave the spot their working place. V. Issue: Whether or not the definition for “hours of work” as presently applied to dry land laborers equally applicable to seaman? Held: No.. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: LUZON STEVEDORING CO. it was denied. close shop and check off. it being enough that he “cease to work” may rest completely and leave or may leave at his will the spot where he actually stays while working. The Court ruled that we do not need to set for seaman a criterion different from that applied to laborers on land.. that the work performed in excess of 8 hours be paid an overtime pay of 50 per cent the regular rate of pay. Respondent: Luzon Marine Department Union And The Hon. Herein petitioner sought for the reconsideration of the decision only in so far as it interpreted that the period during which a seaman is aboard a tugboat shall be considered as “working time” for the purpose of the 8 – hours – Labor Law. and that work performed on Sundays and legal holidays be paid double the regular rate of pay. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 178 .R. A laborer need not leave the premises of the factory. INC. V.

among others. On February 1. On July 28. that petitioner be ordered to pay its watchmen or police force overtime pay from the commencement of their employment. Herein petitioner undertook the arrastre service in some of the piers in Manila’s Port Area at the request and under the control of the U. The watchmen of the petitioner continued in the service with a number of substitution and additions. 1.) The watchmen are not entitled to night differential pay for past service. Inc.S. 1946.00 per day for the night shift. 1947 the petitioner instituted the system of strict 8 – hour shifts.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. 1945.00 per day for the dayshift and P6. 3. includes the overtime compensation? ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 179 . the petitioner began the postwar operation of the arrastre service at the present at the request and under the control of the Bureau of Customs. The case thereafter alleviated in which Judge Lanting ruled. INC. No. 2. Army. requesting that the overtime pay be investigated.R. Hence. contending that the agreement under which its police force were paid certain specific wages for 12 hour shifts.00 per day for the day shift and P6. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND MANILA TERMINAL RELIEF AND MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION G.) The decision under review should be affirmed in so far it grants compensation for overtime on regular days during the period from the date of entrance to duty to May 24. 1947 Manila Aid Association filed an amended petition with the Court of Industrial Relations praying. such compensation to consist of the amount that corresponds to the four hours’ overtime at the regular rate and an additional amount of 25 per cent thereof. and therefore the decision should be reversed.) As the compensation for work done on Sundays and legal holidays. 1947. sent a letter to the Department of Labor. Issue: Whether or not the agreement under which its police force were paid certain specific wages for 12 hour shifts.25 per day for the nightshift. the petitioner should pay its watchmen the compensation that corresponds to the overtime (in excess of 8 hours) at the regular rate only. included overtime compensation. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY. this petition. V. by virtue of a contract entered into with Philippine Government. Respondent: The Court Of Industrial Relations And Manila Terminal Relief And Mutual Aid Association Ponente: J. Paras Facts: On September 1. On May 27. their salaries having been raised during the month of February to P4. Petitioner hired some 30 men as watchmen on 12 hour shifts at a compensation of P3. some of the members of the Manila Terminal Relief and Mutual Aid Association.: L – 4148 Date: July 16. 1952 Petitioner: Manila Terminal Company. but nothing was done by the Department. Later.

The appealed decision. although they found themselves required to work for 12 hours a day. but in a way to minimize unemployment by forcing employers. regardless of its terms and conditions. much less to insist in the observance of the 8 hour labor law. Although.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: No. but it cannot fairly be supposed that they had the freedom to bargain in any way. to utilize different shifts of laborers or employees working only for 8 hour each. it may be argued that the salary for the night shift was lessened. in cases where more than 8 – hour operation is necessary. Also. there was agreement to work. The petitioner’s watchmen must have railroaded themselves into their employment for their subsistence. True. It is high time that all employers were warned that the public is interested in the strict enforcement of the Eight – Hour Labor Law. in the form voted by Judge Lanting. the fact that the rate for the day shift was increased in a sense tends to militate against the contention that the salaries given during the 12 hour shifts included overtime compensation. The Court ruled that in times of acute employment. The law gives the Association the right to extra compensation. This was designed not only to safeguard the health and welfare of the laborer or employee. it being understood that the petitioner’s watchmen will be entitled to extra compensation only from the dates they respectively entered the service of the petitioner. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 180 . there was no reduction was made in the salaries which its watchmen received under the 12 hour arrangement. their main concern in the first place being admission to some work. for the obvious reason that could not have expressly waived it. is affirmed. And they could not be held to have impliedly waived such extra compensation.

No additional evidence was necessary to prove that the private respondents were entitled to additional compensation for whether or not they were entitled to the same is a question of law which the respondent court answered correctly. 1982 Mercury Drug Company. he should also be paid additional compensation for overtime work.I. Additional compensation for nighttime work is founded on public policy. 1962.R awarding additional pay for nighttime work is supported by evidence. No. Issue: Whether or not private respondents are entitled for nighttime work premiums although there is a waiver of said claims and the total absence of evidence there on? Held: Yes. The “waiver rule” does not apply in the case at bar. hence the same cannot be waived. Jr.R. this petition. filed a petition against Mercury Drug Company. NARDO DAYAO. for its disestablishment and the refund of all monies it had collected from petitioners. Hence. and as against the respondent union. 1961 up to June 30. Herein respondent. Facts: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. Incorporated contenting: 1) payment of their unpaid back wages for work done on Sundays and legal holidays plus 25% additional compensation from date of their employment up to June 30.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: MERCURY DRUG COMPANY INCORPORATED VS.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. Work done at night should be paid more than work done at daytime. Gutierrez. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: G. L-30452 September 30. Petition is dismissed. ET AL. 3) reinstatement of Januario Referente and Oscar Echalar to their former positions with back salaries. Ruling of C. Incorporated Nardo Dayao J. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 181 . 1962. Mercury Drug is hereby ordered to pay the 69 petitioners another additional sum or premium equivalent to 25% of their respective basic or regular salaries for nighttime services rendered from March 20. and that if that work is done beyond the worker’s regular hours of duty. 2) payment of the extra compensation on work done at night.

407. CIR issued an order holding that mealtime should be counted in determining overtime work and ordered to pay P101. Respondents. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 182 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F.R. No. and argued that the 2 hours corresponding to the mealtime periods should not be included in computing compensation. The CIR’s finding that work in the petitioner company was continuous and did not permit employees and laborers to rest completely is not without basis in evidence. 1962 Petitioner: National Development Company Respondent: Court Of Industrial Relations And National Textile Workers Union Ponente: J. Regala Facts: Case for review from the Court of Industrial Relations The National Development Company or government – owned and controlled corporation had four shifts of work. whenever workers in one shift were required to continue working until the next shift. Claimants herein rendered services to the Company from 6am – 6pm implies either that they were not allowed to leave the spot of their working place. Order of March 19. petitioner has been paying them for six hours only. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND NATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERS UNION G. The records show that although there was a one – hour meal time. asked the court of Industrial Relations to order the payment of additional overtime pay corresponding to the mealtime periods. 8am – 4pm 6am – 2pm 2pm – 10pm 10pm – 6pm Each shift had 1 – hr meal time period. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but were dismissed by the CIR. Also. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY VS. Issue: Whether or not on the basis of evidence. 1959 are hereby affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. this petition. from (1) 11am to 12nn for those working between 6am and 2pm and from (2) 7pm to 8om for those working between 2pm and 10pm. petitioner nevertheless credited the workers with 8 hours of work for each shift and paid them for the same number of hours. whose members are employed at the NDC.: L – 15422 Date: November 30. The timecards show that the work was continuous and without interruption breaks should be counted as working time for purposes of overtime compensation. Hence. the time which the laborer is not working place and can rest completely shall not be counted. to wit.96 by way of overtime compensation. the mealtime breaks should be considered working time? Held: Yes. 1959 and the resolution of April 27. or that they could not rest completely. The Court ruled that when the work is not continuous.

NASSOO. but whether they actually rendered service in excess of said number of hours. Malondras. so they are given living quarters and subsistence allowance of P1.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION VS. Hence. Bargeman are required to stay in their barges for on call duty.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. No. However. 1956. and recommending the payment to him of P15. 1961 National Shipyards And Steel Corporation Court Of Industrial Relations J.R. 1957 to April 30. and from January 1. Respondent Malondras should be credited (5) overtime hours instead of (16) hours a day for the periods covered by the examiner’s report. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: G. an overtime service of 16 hours a day for a period from January 1.15 as overtime compensation during the period covered by the report. this petition.50 per day during the time they are on board. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS L-17068 December 30. The examiner then submitted an amended report giving Malondras an average of 16 overtime hours a day. engaged in the business of ship building and repair that needs a service of a bargeman. The Court ruled that the correct criterions in determining whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not whether they were on board and cannot leave ship beyond the regular eight working hours a day. 1954 December 31. 242. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 183 . In such much as the parties show that the subsistence allowance is independent of and has nothing to do with whatever additional compensation for overtime work was due the petitioner. Order appealed is affirmed with modifications. inclusive. 1957. the same should not be deducted from his overtime compensation. Reyes Facts: Petition for review by certiorari of the orders of the Court of Industrial relations requiring it to pay its bargeman. Malondras filed with the Industrial Court a complaint for the payment of overtime compensation because of his exclusion from the second report of the examiner. Issue: Whether or not respondent Malondras is entitled to 16 hours a day overtime pay? Held: No.

and its resolution en banc denying the motion for reconsideration by the petitioner herein. Cost against appellant. 1055 – V dated October 10. The Court orders to compute the overtime compensation due the aforesaid fourteen (14) aircraft mechanic and the 2 employees from the Communication Department based on the time sheet of said employees from February 23. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: PAN AMERICAN WOLRD AIRWAYS SYSTEM (PHIL. the mechanics had been called from their meals or told to hurry Employees Association up eating to perform work during this period.L. Petitioner contends that the finding of that the 1 – hour meal period should be considered work (deducting 15 minutes as time allowed for eating) is not supported by substantial evidence. that if they happened not to be available when called. they were reprimanded by the lead man. that as in fact it happened on many occasions. Issue: Whether or not the 1 hour meal period should be considered as overtime work (after deducting 15 minutes)? Held: Yes. The Court ruled that during the so called meal period. PAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION G.: L . No. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 184 . 1958 and to submit his report within 30 days for further disposition by the court. Judgment appealed from is affirmed. Facts: Appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations in case No. Reyes.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F.16275 Date: February 23.B. the mechanics were required to stand by for emergency work.R.) V.) Respondent: Pan American Employees Association Ponente: J. 1959. 1961 Petitioner: Pan American Wolrd Airways System (Phil. 1952 – July 15. J.

Barredo Facts: Appeal from the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations.: L-30279 Date: July 30. The industrial court cannot even in a certified labor dispute impose upon the parties terms and conditions inconsistent with existing law and jurisprudence. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 185 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. The Court ruled that the rationale for overtime pay is thus the additional work. The basis of computation of overtime pay beyond the required by law must be the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties. Petitioner allegedly failed to comply with its commitment of organizing a committee on Personnel Affairs to take change of screening and deliberating on the promotion of employees covered by a collecting bargaining agreement then in force between the said parties. 1982 Petitioner: Philippine National Bank Respondent: Philippine National Bank Employees Association (PEMA) And Court Of Industrial Relations Ponente: J.R. There is presently a consciousness towards helping our employees by giving of additional allowance in times of economic uncertainly. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA) AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS G. and still refuses to reinstate the same up to the present. labor or service employed and the adverse effects of his longer stay in place of work that justify and is the real reason for the extra compensation for overtime pay. withdrew said benefits and in spite of repeated demands refused. In the first and causes of action the respondent’s Board of Directors approved a revision of the computation of overtime pay. without just cause. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK V. Petitioner has repeatedly requested Respondent that the cost of living allowance and longevity pay be taken into account in the computation of OT pay. but since the grant of benefits in question. Longevity pay cannot be included in the computation of overtime pay when the Collective Bargaining Agreement so stipulates. No. Issue: Whether or not the cost of living allowance and longevity pay should be included in the computation of overtime pay? Held: No.

The Court ruled that where after the morning roll call the outside or field sales personnel leave the plant of the company to go on their respective sales routes and they do not have a daily time record but the sales routes are so planned that they can be completed within 8 hours at most. No. 1963 Petitioner: San Miguel Brewery. The union manifested its desire to confine its claim to its demands for overtime night – shift differential pay and attorney’s fees. Inc. et al. VS.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. so that they are made to work beyond the required eight hours similar to piece work. Ponente: J. INC. and the employees’ participation depends on their industry. The decision of Industrial Court is modified. or commission basis regardless of the time employed. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: SAN MIGUEL BREWERY. Bautista Facts: Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. this petition. Motion for Reconsideration in the industrial court en banc was denied. Herein respondent filed complaint the San Miguel Brewery embodying 12 demands for the betterment of the condition of employment of its members. “pakiao”. ET AL G. it is held that the Eight – Hour Labor Law has no application to said outside or field sales personnel and that they are not entitled to overtime compensation.: L – 18353 Date: July 31. additional separation pay and sick and vacation leave compensation.R. Respondent: Democratic Labor Organization. and they receive monthly salaries and sales commission in variable amounts. the Eight – Hour Labor law applies to the employees concerned for those working in the field or engaged in the sale of the company’s products outside its premises should be paid the extra compensation accorded them in addition to the monthly salary and commission by earned by them. regardless of the meal allowance given to employees who work up to late at night. Judge Bautista rendered decision that with regard to overtime compensation. hence. DEMOCRATIC LABOR ORGANIZATION. Issue: Whether or not outside or field sales personnel are entitled to the benefits of the Eight Hour Labor law? Held: No. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 186 .

The new work schedule fully complies with the daily work period of eight (8) hours without violating the Labor Code. the new schedule applies to all employees in the factory similarly situated whether they are union members or not. tubes and other rubber products. The petitioner cities as reason for the adjustment the efficient conduct of its business operations and its improved production.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: SIME DARBY PILIPINAS. Espadilla 2011-0091 Case Title: G. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of automotive tires. whenever exigencies of the service so require. The Labor Article dismissed the complainant on the ground that the change in the work schedule and the elimination of the 30-minute paid lunch break of factory workers constituted a valid exercise of management prerogative and did not decrease the benefits granted to factory workers as the working time did not go beyond 8 hours. Beforehand. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 187 . it must also protect the right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. NLRC (2ND DIVISION) AND SIME DARBY SALARIED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (ALU-TUCP) G. Private respondent felt affected adversely by the change in the work schedule and discontinuance of the 30-minute paid “on call” lunch break. except those in the Warehouse and Quality Assurance Department working on shifts. 1998 Sime Darby Pilipinas. Petitioner issued a memorandum to all factory. No. 119205 April 15. Bellosillo Facts: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not there was a diminution of benefits when the 30-minute paid lunch break was eliminated? Held: The right to fix the work. VS. Hence. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marie Antoinette F. Since the employees are no longer required during this one-hour lunch break.R. Private respondent is an association of monthly salaried employees of petitioner at its Marikina factory. Also. schedules of the employees rests principally on their employer. INC. all company factory workers in Marikina including members of private respondent union worked from 7:45am to 3:45pm with a 30-minute paid “on call” lunch break. there is no more need for them to be compensated for this period.R. hence the filling of complaint for unfair labor practice. NLRC (2nd Division) And Sime Darby Salaried Employees Association (ALU-TUCP) J. Management retains the prerogative. discrimination and evasion of liability. Certiorari. Inc.based employees advising all its monthly salaried employees in its Marikina Tire Plant. to change the working hours of its employees Petition is granted. The dismissed complaint against petitioner for unfair labor practice is affirmed. Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees. this petition.

Baltazar was recalled to appellants Manila Office on the 13th of October. The investigation found that the employees’ grievances were well founded. 8 days after Baltazar was appointed as the salesman-in-charge. It is limited in its operation. be absurd to grant a right thereto to an employee guilty of the same breach of obligation. He was dismissed from work because of petitioner’s unauthorized absence and if the company would consider its health. Inc. must be certified to by the company physician and the appellant-company informed that Baltazar was dismissed effective November 30. 1969 Nicanor M. should there be a substantial breach of obligations by the employee. In connection with the question of whether or not petitioner is entitled to the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave. as if he were entitled to greater protection than employees engaged for a fixed duration. On October 9. Philippine Education Company 53 O. the same is not commutable or payable in cash upon the employees’ option. Held: No. From November 3 to December 19 on the same year. No. unused sick leave may be accumulated up to a maximum of 6 months.00. 1956. the petitioner is not entitled to one month separation pay and the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave.R. he absented himself from work without consent from his superiors and without advising them or anybody else of the reason for his prolonged absence. the strikers returned to their work voluntarily. ordering San Miguel Brewery Inc. the regular employees in Dagupan warehouse went on strike because of unjust treatment.00 per diem and a commission of P0. Facts: The petitioner is the salesman-in-charge of San Miguel Brewery. Under the Marcaida vs. P5. RA 1052 makes reference to termination of employment. 23. Inc. Baltazar San Miguel Brewery. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to one month separation pay and the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: NICANOR M. J. instead of dismissal. L-23076 February 27. in Dagupan warehouse with a monthly pay of P240. the petitioner was informed that he was not to return to Dagupan anymore but he still reported to work at the main office from October 16 to November 2. it appears that while under the last paragraph of Article 5 of appellant’s Rules and Regulations of Health. however. 1956 upon the order of his superior and conduct an investigation. to be considered authorized and excusable. When the employment is for a fixed duration. 1956. Dizon. still the petitioner did inexcusable actions since sick leave. The next day. No.R. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. to exclude employees separated from the service for causes attributable to their own fault. in which event the latter is not entitles to advance notice or separation pay. when the employment is without a definite period. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY.75 per case sold. to cases of employment without definite period. On October 15. plus the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave.G. BALTAZAR VS. INC. it would patently. 1956 waiting for assignment. to pay Baltazar one month separation pay. G. Baltazar initiated a complaint which the trial court ruled that Baltazar’s dismissal was justified but. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 188 . Welfare and Retirement Plan. welfare and retirement plan requiring sick leave. the employer may terminate it even before the expiration of a stipulated period.

GR number: G. damages and attorney’s fees.54. The SC referred the case to CA which the latter also dismissed the petition due to petitioners’ failure to comply with Section 3. In Labor Arbiter’s ruling.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. Petitioners’ argument that under Section 2. 427. The Labor Arbiter gave weight to petitioners’ arguments on the computation of wages based on the 304 divisor used by ANTECO in converting the leave credits of its employees. 017. Ponente: Carpio. ANTECO is not paying them 61 days every year. the difference between 365 and 304. who heard the case. rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners granting them the wage differentials amounting P1. J. Held: The petition is denied. an amount clearly above the minimum wage. for every year. The Labor arbiter. However. The NLRC applied the formula in Section 2 (Daily Wage Rate = (Wage x 12)/365 to the monthly wage of P3. Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.R. The Labor Arbiter concluded that ANTECO owed employees the wages for 61 days. No. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ANTIQUE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES. In NLRC’s ruling. 147420 Date: June 10. the NLRC pointed out that the Labor Arbiter’s own computation showed that the daily wage rate of the employees involved were above the minimum daily wage of P124. The Regional Branch of DOLE found Antique Electric Cooperatives. 2004 Petitioner: Cezar Odango in his behalf of 32 complainants Respondent: National Labor Relations Commissions and Antique Electric Cooperatives. 788. Rule IV of Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. ANTECO appealed the decision to the NLRC and the latter reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and even dismissed the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. 788 to arrive at the daily wage rate of P124. This lead to the filing of complaint of 33 monthly-paid employees with the NLRC Sub-Regional Branch VI in Iloilo City.412. praying for the payment of wage differentials. Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. Facts: Petitioners are monthly-paid employees whose workdays are from Monday to Friday and half of Saturday. Inc. INC. ANTECO uses a divisor of 304. (ANTECO) liable for underpayment of monthly-paid employees after a routine inspection. Petitioners’ claim that this includes not only the 10 legal holidays. The said basis of ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 189 . It was shown that the lowest paid employees of ANTECO receiving a monthly wage of P3. Petitioners’ then elevated the case to the SC through a Petition for certiorari which the Court dismissed due to petitioners’ failure to comply with Section II.507. monthly-paid employees are considered paid for all the days of the month including un-worked days and since in the computation of leave credits. hence directing the ANTECO to pay its employees wage differentials amounting to P1. This is unmeritorious.73 and attorney’s fees of 10%. the respondent company failed to comply.75. he pointed out that ANTECO failed to disprove petitioners’ argument that monthly-paid employees are considered paid for all the days in a month under Section 2. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case Title: CEZAR ODANGO IN HIS BEHALF OF 32 COMPLAINANTS VS. Rule IV of Book 3 of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code. Inc. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners’ being monthly-paid employees are entitled to their money claim. but also their un-worked half of Saturdays and all of Sundays.

However. the minimum allowable divisor is 287. Book 3 of the Implementing Rules and Policy Instructions No. they in effect amended then by enlarging the scope of their exclusion. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 190 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION petitioners’ arguments is already void and in Insular Bank of Asia v. The 304 divisor used by ANTECO is clearly above the minimum of 287 days. On the other hand.” Even assuming that the said provision is valid. it stated that. no pay. The Labor Code is clear that monthly-paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. and less than 26 Saturdays (or 52 half Saturdays). 9 issued by the Secretary of Labor are null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code’s provisions on holiday pay. The facts show that petitioners are required to work only from Monday to Friday and half of Saturday.” The right to be paid for un-worked days is generally limited to the 10 legal holidays in a year. Thus. petitioners’ claim will still fail because of the basic rule of “no work. the use of ANTECO of a divisor less than 365 days cannot make the respondent company liable for underpayment. Inciong. “Section 2. Rule IV. less 52 Sundays. that monthly-paid employees are presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. Rule IV of Book III of the implementing rules. the implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated by the Secretary of Labor excludes monthly-paid employees from the said benefits by inserting. Any divisor below 287 days means that ANTECO’s workers are deprived of their holiday pay for some or all of the 10 legal holidays. which is the result of 365 days. under Section 2.

Every unenjoyed portion thereof at the end of the current year was converted to cash and paid at the end of the said oneyear period. It stopped the payment of its cash equivalent on the ground that they are not entitled to the said benefits under the 1989 CBA. provides for sick leave with pay benefits each year to its employees who have rendered at least one year of service with the company. such sick leave can only be enjoyed upon certification by a company designated physician. the company agrees to grant 15 days sick leave with pay each year to every regular non-intermittent worker who already rendered at least one year of service with the company. However. the commutation of unenjoyed portion of the sick leave was withdrawn when the petitioner-company had a new assistant manager. J. RUBEN V. 102132 Date: March 19. and if the same is not enjoyed within one year period of the current year. The Union brought the matter to NCMB and the parties mutually designated Ruben Abarquez. any unenjoyed portion thereof. all the field workers of petitioner who are members of the regular labor pool and the present regular extra labor pool who had rendered at least 750 hours to 1. shall be converted to cash and shall be paid at the end of the said one year period. Issue: Whether or not intermittent field workers who are members of the regular labor pool and the present extra pool in accordance with the CBA are entitled to the commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 191 . The petitioner-company disagreed with the ruling. ABARQUEZ AND THE ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATUTUCP) G. Facts: The petitioner and the private respondent entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which. Metilla for Association of Trade Unions (ATUTUCP) Ponente: Romeo.R.R. are entitled to the sick leave privilege. number: G. Gaspar and Associates Respondent: Bansalan B. this petition. On the other hand.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. No. However. During the effectivity of the CBA until three months of its renewal with a total of 3 years and 9 months. He ruled that Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Corporation should grant and extend sick leave privilege of the commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave of all the intermittent field workers who are members of the regular labor pool and the present extra pool in accordance with the CBA. And provided however. particularly Sections 1 and 3. under Section 3 of the said article. Jr. that only those regular workers of the company whose work are not intermittent. it provides that all intermittent workers of the company who are members of the Regular Labor Pool shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per year of service with pay with the basis of the number of hours rendered including overtime. Article VIII. Under Section 1. Hence. under Sections 1 and 3 of Article VIII. 1993 Petitioner: Libron.500 hours were extended sick leave with pay benefits. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES VS. to act as voluntary arbitrator.

only the regular non-intermittent workers and no other can avail of the said privilege because of the proviso found in the last paragraph thereof. Article VIII. It is unreasonable for the petitioner to isolate Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1989 CBA from the other related section on sick leave with pay benefits. with more reason should they be on par with each other with respect to sick leave benefits. Public respondents correctly observed that the parties to the CBA clearly intended the same sick leave privilege to be accorded the intermittent workers in the same way that they are both given the same treatment with respect to vacation leaves – non-commutable and non-cummulative. including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising such agreement. Besides. Article VIII of the 1989 CBA cannot be faulted and is absolutely correct. during its negotiations. Petitioner is of mistaken notion that since the privilege of commutation or conversion to cash of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits is found in Section 1. A CBA. as used in Article 252 of the Labor Code. Moreover. is a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative incorporating the agreement reached after the negotiations with respect to wages. The manner they were deprive of the privilege previously recognized and extended to them by the petitioner is not only tainted with arbitrariness but likewise discriminatory in nature. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment. If they are treated equally with respect to vacation leave privilege. why did not the parties expressly stipulate in the 1989 CBA that regular intermittent workers are not entitled to commutation of the unenjoyed portion of their sick leave with pay benefits? There had been no grave abuse of discretion by public respondent in issuing the decision. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 192 . if the intention is otherwise.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: The petition is denied. his interpretation of Sections 1 and 3.

9 issued by the Secretary of Labor are null and void since in the guise of clarifying the Labor Code’s provisions on holiday pay. The Labor Arbiter gave weight to petitioners’ arguments on the computation of wages based on the 304 divisor used by ANTECO in converting the leave credits of its employees. damages and attorney’s fees. Rule IV. INC. The SC referred the case to CA which the latter also dismissed the petition due to petitioners’ failure to comply with Section 3. Facts: Petitioners are monthly-paid employees whose workdays are from Monday to Friday and half of Saturday. No. Held: The petition is denied. Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The Regional Branch of DOLE found Antique Electric Cooperatives. for every year. Inc. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners’ being monthly-paid employees are entitled to their money claim. The NLRC applied the formula in Section 2 (Daily Wage Rate = (Wage x 12)/365 to the monthly wage of P3.75. Carpio. ANTECO is not paying them 61 days every year. Rule IV of Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.54. ANTECO uses a divisor of 304. Petitioners’ then elevated the case to the SC through a Petition for certiorari which the Court dismissed due to petitioners’ failure to comply with Section II. In Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The Labor arbiter. who heard the case. the respondent company failed to comply. Book 3 of the Implementing Rules and Policy Instructions No. It was shown that the lowest paid employees of ANTECO receiving a monthly wage of P3. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ANTIQUE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES. (ANTECO) liable for underpayment of monthly-paid employees after a routine inspection. This is unmeritorious. Petitioners’ claim that this includes not only the 10 legal holidays. However. rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners granting them the wage differentials amounting P1. the NLRC pointed out that the Labor Arbiter’s own computation showed that the daily wage rate of the employees involved were above the minimum daily wage of P124. The Labor Arbiter concluded that ANTECO owed employees the wages for 61 days. Inciong. praying for the payment of wage differentials. they in effect amended then by enlarging the scope of their exclusion. The Labor Code is clear that monthly-paid employees are not excluded from the benefits of holiday pay. Inc. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case Title: GR number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: CEZAR ODANGO IN HIS BEHALF OF 32 COMPLAINANTS VS. hence directing the ANTECO to pay its employees wage differentials amounting to P1. 017. but also their un-worked half of Saturdays and all of Sundays. “Section 2.507. monthly-paid employees are considered paid for all the days of the month including un-worked days and since in the computation of leave credits. it stated that. an amount clearly above the minimum wage. Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. 427.412. In NLRC’s ruling. 2004 Cezar Odango in his behalf of 32 complainants National Labor Relations Commissions and Antique Electric Cooperatives. 147420 June 10. 788 to arrive at the daily wage rate of P124. G.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P.73 and attorney’s fees of 10%. Petitioners’ argument that under Section 2. the implementing rules on holiday pay promulgated by the Secretary of Labor excludes monthly-paid employees from the said benefits by ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 193 . ANTECO appealed the decision to the NLRC and the latter reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and even dismissed the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Rule IV of Book 3 of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code. However.R. 788. the difference between 365 and 304. The said basis of petitioners’ arguments is already void and in Insular Bank of Asia v. This lead to the filing of complaint of 33 monthly-paid employees with the NLRC Sub-Regional Branch VI in Iloilo City. J. he pointed out that ANTECO failed to disprove petitioners’ argument that monthly-paid employees are considered paid for all the days in a month under Section 2.

” The right to be paid for un-worked days is generally limited to the 10 legal holidays in a year.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION inserting. The 304 divisor used by ANTECO is clearly above the minimum of 287 days. Any divisor below 287 days means that ANTECO’s workers are deprived of their holiday pay for some or all of the 10 legal holidays. that monthly-paid employees are presumed to be paid for all days in the month whether worked or not. petitioners’ claim will still fail because of the basic rule of “no work.” Even assuming that the said provision is valid. and less than 26 Saturdays (or 52 half Saturdays). less 52 Sundays. Thus. The facts show that petitioners are required to work only from Monday to Friday and half of Saturday. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 194 . the use of ANTECO of a divisor less than 365 days cannot make the respondent company liable for underpayment. Rule IV of Book III of the implementing rules. under Section 2. which is the result of 365 days. the minimum allowable divisor is 287. no pay. On the other hand.

(FORMERLY FILIPRO.. if they are entitled to such holiday pay. and (2) Whether or not. No. this SOD does not at least signify that these sales personnel’s time and performance are supervised. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 195 . Jr. under Rule IV..) Ponente: Gutierrez. Jr. (Nestle Philippines. subject only to the exclusions and limitations specified in Article 82 and such other legal restrictions as are provided for in the Code. vacation and sick leave pay due to the use of the divisor 251. With regards the change of divisor from 251 to 261 is modified since the change would result in a lower daily rate which is violative of the prohibition on non-diminution of benefits found in Article 100 of the Labor Code. Facts: The respondent. The purpose of this schedule is merely to ensure that the sales personnel are out of the office not later than 8:00 am and are back in the office not earlier than 4:00 pm. INC. as voluntary arbitrator. merchandisers and medical representatives from the award of the holiday pay and deduction from the holiday pay award of overpayment for overtime. Under Article 82. (formerly Filipro. filed a motion for clarification requesting the limitation of award to 3 years. He even ruled that the 251 divisor should be changed to 261 and ordered the reimbursement of overpayment for overtime. the exclusion of salesmen. JR. Inc. Even if there’s an 8:00 am to 4:00 or 4:30 pm working period of the said sales personnel. night differential. Filipro Inc. Inc. Both Filipro and the UFE agreed to submit the case voluntary arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar. The respondent arbitrator ruled that the sales personnel are field personnel and are not entitled to holiday pay. night differential. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: UNION FILIPRO EMPLOYEES (UFE) VS.. this petition.” The law requires that the actual hours of work in the field be reasonably determined. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NESTLE PHILIPPINES.. the divisor should be change from 251 to 261 days. The company has no way of determining whether or not these sales personnel. even if they report to the office before 8:00 am prior to the field work and come back at 4:30 pm really spend the hours in between in actual field work. field personnel are not entitled to holiday pay. vacation and sick leave benefits due to the use of 251 divisor. Field personnel is defined as 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. truck drivers. to pay its monthly-paid employees holiday pay pursuant to Article 94 of the Code. sales representatives. they are still considered “field personnel whose actual work in the field cannot be determined. J. INC. Hence. 1992 Petitioner: Union Filipro Employees (UFE) Respondent: Benigno Vivar. 79255 Date: January 20.” Petitioner contends these sales personnel are strictly supervised as shown by the SOD (Supervisor of the Day) schedule. Moreover.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. Held: Sales personnel are not entitled of holiday pay.). Book II of the Implementing Rules provides the coverage of the holiday pay which states that rules on holiday pay shall apply to all employees except “Field personnel and other employees whose in time and performance is unsupervised by the employer.) GR number: G. filed with the NLRC a petition for declaratory relief seeking a ruling on its rights and obligations respecting claims of its monthly paid employees for holiday pay. however. National Labor Relations Commission and Nestle Philippines. Jr.R. which the latter rendered a decision directing Filipro Inc. BENIGNO VIVAR. Inc. Filipro Inc. Issue/s: (1) Whether or not Nestlé’s sales personnel are entitled to holiday pay.

Petitioner appealed and was acted on by the respondent Undersecretary. However. Hence. Held: Regional Director’s decision. using the “314 factor” already gave complete payment of all compensation due to its workers. CRESENCIANO B. Elmer Abadilla. Wellington leaves no day unaccounted for. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION VS. even if the worker does not work on these regular holidays. It further contends that it pays its monthly paid employees a fixed monthly compensation using the “314 factor” which undeniably covers and already includes payment for all the working days in a month as well as all the 10 un-worked regular holidays within a year. Regional Director’s decision was affirmed. The Wellington had been paying its employees a salary of not less than the statutory minimum wage and that the monthly salary. No. is nullified and set aside. affirmed by the Undersecretary. ELMER ABADILLA AND 34 OTHERS G. Facts: By virtue of the routine inspection conducted by a Labor Enforcement Officer. paid was not less than the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by 12. it is paying for all the days of a year with the exception only of 51 Sundays. Under-Secretary of Labor and Employment. and 34 others Ponente: Narvasa. 1995 Petitioner: Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corporation Respondent: Cresenciano B. except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than 10 workers.R. this petition. thus. The Regional Director ordered the petitioner to pay the employees additional compensation corresponding to 4 extra working days.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 196 . receiving a fixed monthly compensation. is entitled to an additional pay aside from his usual holiday pay whenever a regular holiday falls on a Sunday. Wellington argued that the monthly-paid employees already includes holiday pay for all regular holidays and there is no legal basis for the finding of alleged non-payment of regular holidays falling on a Sunday.J. Trajano.R. But still. Issue: Whether or not a monthly-paid employees. Every worker should be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays. the petitioner argued that the company. Apparently the monthly salary was fixed by Wellington to provide for compensation for every working day of the year including holidays specified by law and excluding only Sundays. TRAJANO. Wellington Flour Mills owned by the petitioner-company was found non-payment of regular holidays falling on a Sunday for monthly-paid employees. C. number: G. 114698 Date: July 3.

are presumed to be already paid the 10 paid legal holidays and are no longer entitled to the separate payment for the said regular holidays. Book III of the IRR states the holiday pay of certain employees in which under par. Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both school and faculty members as no class days. Christmas. The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision with regards to the collegiate faculty. every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays. Facts: Petitioner is a non-stock. Held: The NLRC rendered a new decision exempting the college from paying hourly paid faculty members their pay for regular holidays. They shall. L-65482 December 1. in case of extensions said faculty members shall likewise be paid their hourly rates should they teach during said extensions. and (c) collegiate faculty who are paid on the basis of student contract hour. In the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. No. They sign contracts before the start of the semester. this petition. except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than 10 workers. without deduction for holidays. and Section 8. J. certainly the latter do not expect payment for said un-worked days. it stated that the faculty and personnel of Jose Rizal College who are paid their salary by the month uniformly in a school year. Rule IV. Collegiate faculty of Jose Rizal College who by contract are paid compensation per student contract hour are not entitled to un-worked holiday pay considering that these regular holidays have been excluded in the programming of the student contract hours. National Alliance of Teachers and Office Workers filed a complaint against the college when the latter failed to pay them the required holiday pay. who receive their monthly salary uniformly throughout the year. whether extensions of class days be ordered or not. private school teachers. and thus this was clearly in their minds when they entered into the teaching contract. whether the same be during the regular semesters of the school year or during semestral. Under par.R.R number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE VS. 1987 Jose Rizal College National Labor Relations Commission and National Alliance of Teachers/Office Workers Paras. NLRC held that collegiate faculty is entitled to holiday pay. However. the faculty members are entitled for un-worked holiday pay. It has three groups of employees categorized as follows: (a) personnel on monthly basis. including faculty members of colleges and universities. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 197 . a. Under these provisions. a. the law is silent with respect to the faculty members paid by the hour who because of their teachings contracts are obliged to work and consent to be paid only for work actually done. or Holy Week vacations but ordering the said college to pay the faculty members their regular hourly rate on days declares as special holidays or for some reason classes are called off or shortened for the hours they are supposed to have taught. non-profit educational institution. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. Hence. NLRC AND NAT/OFFICE WORKERS G. may not be paid for the regular holidays during semestral vacations. Article 94 of the Labor Code states the right to holiday pay. irrespective of the number of working days in a month.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. however. irrespective of the actual number of working days in a month without deduction for holidays. and. Issue: Whether or not the collegiate faculty according to their contracts is paid per lecture hour are entitled to un-worked holiday pay. (b) personnel on daily basis who are paid on actual days worked and they received un-worked holiday pay. be paid for the regular holidays during Christmas vacations etc. the personnel of Jose Rizal College who are paid their wages daily are entitles to be paid the 10 un-worked regular holidays according to the pertinent provisions of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code.

G.G. The next day. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY. to pay Baltazar one month separation pay. welfare and retirement plan requiring sick leave. Welfare and Retirement Plan. BALTAZAR VS. to be considered authorized and excusable. the regular employees in Dagupan warehouse went on strike because of unjust treatment. 1969 Nicanor M. the employer may terminate it even before the expiration of a stipulated period. Under the Marcaida vs. Dizon. however.75 per case sold. the same is not commutable or payable in cash upon the employees’ option. Baltazar initiated a complaint which the trial court ruled that Baltazar’s dismissal was justified but. ordering San Miguel Brewery Inc. as if he were entitled to greater protection than employees engaged for a fixed duration. it would patently. Inc. When the employment is for a fixed duration. plus the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave. be absurd to grant a right thereto to an employee guilty of the same breach of obligation. the strikers returned to their work voluntarily. 1956. must be certified to by the company physician and the appellant-company informed that Baltazar was dismissed effective November 30. From November 3 to December 19 on the same year.00 per diem and a commission of P0. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 198 . J. 8 days after Baltazar was appointed as the salesman-in-charge. unused sick leave may be accumulated up to a maximum of 6 months. It is limited in its operation. On October 15. it appears that while under the last paragraph of Article 5 of appellant’s Rules and Regulations of Health. L-23076 February 27. No. when the employment is without a definite period. the petitioner was informed that he was not to return to Dagupan anymore but he still reported to work at the main office from October 16 to November 2. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to one month separation pay and the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave. to exclude employees separated from the service for causes attributable to their own fault. he absented himself from work without consent from his superiors and without advising them or anybody else of the reason for his prolonged absence. No. 1956 waiting for assignment. 1956.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. Baltazar was recalled to appellants Manila Office on the 13th of October.R.00. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. the petitioner is not entitled to one month separation pay and the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave. in Dagupan warehouse with a monthly pay of P240. RA 1052 makes reference to termination of employment. P5. still the petitioner did inexcusable actions since sick leave. Philippine Education Company 53 O. in which event the latter is not entitles to advance notice or separation pay. In connection with the question of whether or not petitioner is entitled to the cash value of 6 months accumulated sick leave. 1956 upon the order of his superior and conduct an investigation. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: NICANOR M. On October 9. Held: No. He was dismissed from work because of petitioner’s unauthorized absence and if the company would consider its health. Inc. to cases of employment without definite period. Facts: The petitioner is the salesman-in-charge of San Miguel Brewery.R. The investigation found that the employees’ grievances were well founded. 23. should there be a substantial breach of obligations by the employee. Baltazar San Miguel Brewery. instead of dismissal. INC.

On the other hand. And provided however. However. During the effectivity of the CBA until three months of its renewal with a total of 3 years and 9 months. including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising such agreement. However. shall be converted to cash and shall be paid at the end of the said one year period. Article VIII. particularly Sections 1 and 3. It is unreasonable for the petitioner to isolate Section 1 of Article VIII of the 1989 CBA from the other related section on sick leave with pay benefits. The manner they were deprive of the privilege previously recognized and extended to them by the petitioner is not only tainted with arbitrariness but likewise discriminatory in nature. under Section 3 of the said article. Gaspar and Associates Respondent: Bansalan B. provides for sick leave with pay benefits each year to its employees who have rendered at least one year of service with the company. Hence. He ruled that Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Corporation should grant and extend sick leave privilege of the commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave of all the intermittent field workers who are members of the regular labor pool and the present extra pool in accordance with the CBA. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES VS. the company agrees to grant 15 days sick leave with pay each year to every regular non-intermittent worker who already rendered at least one year of service with the company. The Union brought the matter to NCMB and the parties mutually designated Ruben Abarquez.R. the commutation of unenjoyed portion of the sick leave was withdrawn when the petitioner-company had a new assistant manager. is a contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative incorporating the agreement reached after the negotiations with respect to wages. any unenjoyed portion thereof. Issue: Whether or not intermittent field workers who are members of the regular labor pool and the present extra pool in accordance with the CBA are entitled to the commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave. RUBEN V.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. all the field workers of petitioner who are members of the regular labor pool and the present regular extra labor pool who had rendered at least 750 hours to 1. Under Section 1. number: G. this petition. Held: The petition is denied. Metilla for Association of Trade Unions (ATUTUCP) Facts: The petitioner and the private respondent entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which. Petitioner is of mistaken notion that since the privilege of commutation or conversion to cash of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits is found in Section 1. Jr.500 hours were extended sick leave with pay benefits. to act as voluntary arbitrator. The petitioner-company disagreed with the ruling. 1993 Petitioner: Libron.R. ABARQUEZ AND THE ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATUTUCP) G. as used in Article 252 of the Labor Code. A CBA. it provides that all intermittent workers of the company who are members of the Regular Labor Pool shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per year of service with pay with the basis of the number of hours rendered including overtime. that only those regular workers of the company whose work are not intermittent. hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment. and if the same is not enjoyed within one year period of the current year. 102132 Date: March 19. Every unenjoyed portion thereof at the end of the current year was converted to cash and paid at the end of the said oneyear period. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 199 . under Sections 1 and 3 of Article VIII. It stopped the payment of its cash equivalent on the ground that they are not entitled to the said benefits under the 1989 CBA. are entitled to the sick leave privilege. No. such sick leave can only be enjoyed upon certification by a company designated physician.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 200 . why did not the parties expressly stipulate in the 1989 CBA that regular intermittent workers are not entitled to commutation of the unenjoyed portion of their sick leave with pay benefits? There had been no grave abuse of discretion by public respondent in issuing the decision. with more reason should they be on par with each other with respect to sick leave benefits. his interpretation of Sections 1 and 3. If they are treated equally with respect to vacation leave privilege. if the intention is otherwise. Moreover. Article VIII of the 1989 CBA cannot be faulted and is absolutely correct. only the regular non-intermittent workers and no other can avail of the said privilege because of the proviso found in the last paragraph thereof. Besides. Public respondents correctly observed that the parties to the CBA clearly intended the same sick leave privilege to be accorded the intermittent workers in the same way that they are both given the same treatment with respect to vacation leaves – non-commutable and non-cummulative.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Article VIII. during its negotiations.

which the total amount reached P7. Patricio L. the petitioner is aware that he is not covered of the Memorandum granting the PCMC employees the conversion of their unused vacation and sick leaves into cash. whose position did not fall under Category I was not entitled to the benefits under the said memorandum. 080. to the cash value of his vacation and sick leave credits in the total amount of P7. The petitioner failed to convince the Court that the actual findings of the CA were arbitrary. this petition. 2005 Donald Kwok Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation Callejo. Even assuming that the petitioner is included among the regular employees referred in the memorandum.R.R. especially considering that such privileges are not inherent to the positions occupied by the petitioner in the respondent corporation. there is no way to determine the actual number of leave credits he is entitled to. The petitioner filed a complaint before the NLRC. The petitioner. Sr. 546. The corporation appealed the decision and the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner. Lim. In the present case. he claimed the cash equivalent of what he believed to be his accumulated vacation and sick leave credits during the entire length of his service with the company. The petitioner retired 36 years later and upon retirement. along with some other stockholders. the corporation has ratified such contracts. 080.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. The petitioner was burdened to prove not only the existence of such benefits but also that he is entitled to the same. The respondent corporation refused to accede to the petitioner’s demand claiming that the latter is not entitled to it. The Court agrees that those who belong to the upper corporate echelons would have more privileges. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled. However. the petitioner’s money claim have already been barred by the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. This being so.. as well as the privilege of converting the same into cash upon retirement. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. No. The corporation was directed to pay the petitioner the amount he was demanding plus interest and 10% attorney’s fees. He claimed that Lim made a verbal promise to give him unlimited sick leave and vacation leave benefits and its cash conversion upon his retirement or resignation without the need for application therefor. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: DONALD KWOK VS. J.00. Facts: Donald Kwok and his father-in-law. the petitioner appealed the NLRC’s decision to the CA but the CA affirmed the NLRC’s decision. 546. only regular employees and managerial and confidential employees falling under Category I were entitled to vacation and sick leave credits. In a testimonial evidence. It was further pointed out that as per Memorandum dated November 6. based on the documentary and testimonial evidence on record. PHILIPPINE CARPET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION G.00 plus interest. established the Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Company in 1965. 1981. there is no proof that petitioner has filed vacation and sick leaves with the company’s personnel department. Hence. the petitioner relied principally on his testimony to prove that Lim made a verbal promise to give him vacation and sick leave credits. there is no evidence that he complied with the cut-off dates for the filing of the cash conversion of vacation and sick leaves. 149252 April 28. Without a record of petitioner’s absences. The respondent denied all of these and claimed that petitioner’s demand was without legal basis. The amount which the petitioner ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 201 . Held: The petition is denied. Additional to that. the Court cannot presume the existence of such privileges. Contracts entered into by a corporate officer or obligations or prestations assumed by such officer for and in behalf of such corporation are binding on the said corporation only if such ofiicer acted within the scope of his authority or if such officer exceeded the limits of his authority.

the promise cannot bind the company in the absence of any Board resolution to that effect. Regarding the verbal promise that Lim made to the petitioner.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION is demanding is baseless. The personal act of the company president cannot bind the corporation. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 202 .

Under the CBA entered by the Zuellig Inc. a fraction of at least six months being considered one year. death or permanent lay-off not due to the fault of said employee shall receive from the company a retirement gratuity in an amount equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service. L-50999 March 23. NLRC (FIRST DIVISION) G. receiver. account must be taken not only of the basic salary of petitioner but also of her transportation and emergency living allowances. NLRC. Black’s Law Dictionary defined commission as the recompensed.00 plus commissions for every sale they made. Any employee. 1990 Jose Songco. trustees. who is separated from employment due to old age. this petition. this has been settled in the case of Santos vs. they argued that they should be granted a separation pay. Each of the petitioners was receiving a monthly salary of P40.) for every year of service that they have worked with the company. in the computation of backwages and separation pay. Hence. whether under the Labor Code or the CBA. J. Some ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 203 . are part of petitioners’ wage and salary. their basic salary. and the petitioners. Some salesmen do not receive any basic salary but depend on commission and allowances or commissions alone. filed with the Department of Labor (Regional Office No. The petitioners appealed to the NLRC but it was denied. However. Held: The petition is granted. Medialdea. etc. and F. Facts: Zuellig (M) Inc. 76721. including probationary employment. Petitioner Romeo Cipres filed a Notice of Voluntary Abandonment and Withdrawal of petition contending that he had received. the petitioner manifested that they no longer contesting their dismissal. years of service shall be deemed equivalent to total service credits. Labor Arbiter Flavio Aguas. to his full and complete satisfaction. however. Petitioners’ contention that in arriving at the correct and legal amount of separation pay due to them. compensation or reward of an agent. Other basis for petitioners’ contention are Article 284 of the Labor Code with regards to reduction of personnel and Sections 9(b) and 10 of Rule 1. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: JOSE SONGCO VS. 4) a clearance to terminate the services of petitioners Jose Songco. Romeo Cipres and Amancio Manuel due to alleged financial losses. it is proper to define first commission. allowances. in Article XIV. One month of salary as used in this paragraph shall be deemed equivalent to the salary at date of retirement. factor. earned sales commissions and allowances should be added together. the petitioners argued that the company is not suffering any losses and the real reason for their termination was their membership in the union. No. sickness. The Labor Arbiter rendered his decision directing the company to pay the complainants separation pay equivalent to their one month salary (exclusive of commissions.E. Book VI of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Issue: Whether or not earned sales commissions and allowances should be included in the monthly salary of petitioners for the purpose of computation of their separation pay.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. 000. The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason for such type of remuneration for services rendered demonstrate clearly that the commission are part of petitioners’ wage and salary. In the issue of whether commission should be included in the computation of their separation pay. salesman. Romeo Cipres and Amancio Manuel National Labor Relations Commission (First Division). broker or bailee. Inc. Zuellig (M).R. At the last hearing of the case.R. Section 1(a). Insofar as whether the allowances should be included in the monthly salary of petitioners for the purpose of computation of their separation pay is concerned. executor. when the same is calculated as a percentage on the amount of his transactions or on the profit to the principal. his separation pay.

NLRC. since the commissions in the present case were earned by actual market transactions attributable to petitioners.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION salesman do not received any basic salary but depend on commission and allowances or commissions alone. it is ruled then that. these should be included in their separation pay. although an employer-employee relationship exist. what should be taken into account is the average commissions earned during their last year of employment. In the computation thereof. Applying this by analogy. the commissions also claimed by petitioner (override commission plus net deposit incentive) are not properly includible in such base figure since such commissions must be earned by actual market transactions attributable to petitioner. In Soriano v. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 204 .

(b) the payment of wages. 1972 while Eleuterio Barbin was hired as winchman on April 15. The complaint was dismissed because there were no witnesses that would support the company’s allegation. were not allowed to return to the fishing vessel to resume their work on that same day.R. emergency cost-of-living allowance and service incentive pay with the Ministry (now DOLE). Ruga. Petitioners appealed the case to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision that a joint fishing venture and not employer-employee relationship exist between the private respondent and the petitioners. whether or not they were illegally dismissed from their employment. Jose Pama was employed on September 29. petitioners were told to proceed to the police station for investigation on the report that they sold some of their fish-catch at midsea. The petitioners denied the charge claiming that the allegation was a countermove because of the formation of their union. Nicanor Francisco. Jaime Barbin started as a pilot of the motor boat until he was transferred as a master fisherman to the fishing vessel 7/B Sandyman II. Hence. the elements that are generally considered are the following: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. In that sense. further contending that they were only engaged in a joint venture. Eladio Calderon. In determining the existence of employer-employee relationship. NLRC G. No. (c) the power of dismissal. On September 11. Issue: Whether or not the fishermen-crew members of the trawl fishing vessel 7/B Sandyman II are employees of its owner-operator. Philip Cervantes and Eleuterio Barbin National Labor Relations Commission and De Guzman Fishing Enterprises and/or Arsenio de Guzman Fernan. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: ALIPIO R. RUGA ET AL. Petitioner Alipio Ruga was hired on September 29. 1968 until he was promoted as chief engineer of the fishing vessel. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 205 . 1990 Alipio R. 1976. Records show in the instant case that petitioners were directly hired by the general manager of the company and its operations manager. this petition.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. The petitioners. Jaime Barbin. Philip Cervantes was hired as winchman on August 1. The employment arises from contract of hire. nevertheless the hiring of petitioners to perform work which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of private respondent for a period of 8-15 years since 1968 qualify them as regular employees within the meaning of Article 281 of the Labor Code as they were indeed engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual fishing business or occupation of private respondent. express or implied.R. one of several fishing vessels owned by the De Guzman Fishing Enterprises which is primarily in the fishing business with port and office at Camarines Sur. Laurente Bautu. no employer-employee relationship could exist. Held: The petitioners were illegally dismissed from their employment. The company denied the petitioners being their employees. 1974 as patron/captain of the fishing vessels. and if so. Facts: The petitioners were the fishermen-crew members of 7/B Sandyman II. The Labor Arbiter rendered a joint decision dismissing all the complaint of the petitioners. Each of the them filed a complaints for illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th month pay. L-72654-61 January 22. 1983. De Guzman Fishing Enterprise. Eladio Calderon started as mechanic on April 16. and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. The virtual dismissal of petitioners from their employment was characterized by undue haste when less extreme measures consistent with the requirements of due process should have been first exhausted. 1974 as assistant engineer. however. J. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. Jose Parma. In the absence of hiring. the dismissal of petitioners was tainted with illegality. VS. While tenure or length of employment is not considered as the test of employment.

vacation leave and overtime pay. The petitioner. they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom. On September 12. Hence. according to Section 19 of the Minimum Wage Law. It is argued that the food or meal given to the deck officers. Cebu Seamen’s Association Paredes. The decision ruled in favor of the respondent union. that with regards to their overtime pay. stated that they have suffered a financial losses in the operation of their vessels and there is no law which provides for the payment of sick leave or vacation leave to employees of private firms. and not supplements which. since if they are not so furnished. L-12444 February 28. while the masters and officers were required to pay their meals and that because the captain had refused to yield to the general reduction of salaries. to pay the sum of P0. finding out that the meals or food in question are not facilities but supplements. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 206 . the laborer would spend and pay them just the same. the petitioners dismissed the captain.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. Inc. J. and not supplements. Held: Supplements constitute extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages. this petition. on the other hand. that after the Minimum Wage Law had taken effect. Facts: The petitioners were engaged in the business of marine coastwise transportation. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. the petitioners required their employees on board their vessels. should be returned to them. that the petitioners’ threatened then to accept the reduction of salaries. the respondent union filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that the officers and men working on board the petitioners’ vessels have not been paid their sick leave. were mere facilities which should be deducted from wages. observed by other shipowners. the petition is dismissed. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: STATE MARINE CORPORATION VS. It was found out that the meals were freely given to crew members prior to the effectivity of the Minimum Wage Law while they were on the high seas not as part of their wages but as a necessary matter in the maintenance of the health and efficiency of the crew members during the voyage. They had a CBA with the Cebu Seamen’s Association.40 for every meal. Issue: Whether or not the required meals which the petitioner company deducted from the salary of the employees is considered as facilities. The deductions therein made for the meals given after August 4.R. they have always observed the Eight-hour labor Law and that overtime does not apply to those who provide means of transportation. should not be deducted from such wages. 1951. CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION G. 1952. are items of expense necessary for the laborer’s and his family’s existence and subsistence so that by express provisions of law. and the operator of the coastwise vessels should continue giving the benefits. Wherefore. marine engineers and unlicensed crew members in question. 1963 State Marine Corporation and Royal Line.R. on their defense. Facilities. No.

1997 Norma Mabeza National Labor Relations Commission and Peter Ng/Hotel Supreme Kapunan. She then filed a leave of absence which was denied by her employer. as she refused to go to the City Prosecutor’s Office. The labor arbiter’s contention that the reason for the monetary benefits received by the petitioner between 1981 to 1987 were less than the minimum wage was because petitioner did not factor in the meals. Peter Ng. The petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go to the City’s Prosecutor’s Office to confirm the veracity and contents of the affidavit as instructed by management. lodging. J.R. electric consumption and water she received during the period of computations. in their Answer. hence. interference or coercion. Without doubt. Issue: Whether or not the dismissal by the private respondent of petitioner constitutes an unfair labor practice. the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employee’s ages. Second. NLRC G. He raises a new ground of loss of confidence. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the hotel management on the ground of loss of confidence. She attempted to return to work but the hotel’s cashier told her that she should not report to work and instead continue with her unofficial leave of absence. Without satisfying these requirements. Finally. service incentive leave pay. 13th month pay. she was ordered by the hotel management to turn over the keys to her living quarters and to remove her belongings to the hotel’s premises.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. such facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements. she filed a complaint against the management for illegal dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Baguio City. which was supported by his filing of criminal case for the alleged qualified theft of the petitioner. argued that her unauthorized leave of absence from work is the ground for her dismissal. this petition. 118506 April 18. Held: The NLRC’s decision is reversed. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: NORMA MABEZA VS. No. the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntary accepted in writing by the employee. Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities. facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. the act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer observed labor standard provisions of the law when he might not have. night differential and other benefits. In addition to that. She appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. These requirements were not met in the instant case. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 207 . That same day. non-payment of holiday pay. together with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employees’ scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. against his employee’s right to institute concerted action for better terms and conditions of employment. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. The pivotal question in any case where unfair labor practice on the part of the employer is alleged is whether or not the employer has exerted pressure. in the form of restraint. Three days after her attempt to return to work. Facts: Petitioner Norma Mabeza and her co-employees at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio City were asked by the hotel’s management to sign an instrument attesting to the latter’s compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard provision. The instrument provides that they have no complaints against the management of the Hotel Supreme as they are paid accordingly and that they are treated well.R. He even maintained that her alleged of underpayment and non-payment of benefits had no legal basis. she alleged underpayment of wages. First.

He also failed to provide proof of the employee’s written authorization and he failed to show how he arrived at the valuations. Considering. More significantly. their ready availability is a necessary matter in the operations of a small hotel. therefore. that hotel workers are required to work on different shifts and are expected to be available at various odd hours. the food and lodging. A benefit or privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the employer is not a facility. such as the private respondent’s hotel. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 208 . The criterion in making a distinction between the two not so much lies in the kind but the purpose. or electricity and water consumed by the petitioner were not facilities but supplements.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Private respondent failed to present any company policy to show that the meal and lodging are part of the salary.

In entering into agreement. Issue: Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that private respondent Dolina was entitled to his salaries from the time he was dropped from PAL’s payroll until this case is finally resolved. When Dolina took a psychological examination. Dolina was placed under preventive suspension. In lieu of reinstatement and the payment of his backwages. for as long as one of the parties appeal to the NLRC and until the case is finally resolved by this court. Dolina must be restored to the payroll and paid for his salaries from the date he was dropped from the PAL’s payroll. Facts: Armando Dolino was admitted to the PAL Aviation School for training as a pilot.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. INC. However.” The court holds that respondents NLRC’s order for the continued payment of Dolina’s salaries from he was dropped from the PAL’s payroll until the case is finally resolved is contrary to law and established jurisprudence and the NLRC acted in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order. he was still short of the minimum flying time requirement and he was extended again. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. his adaptability rating was found unacceptable. Pending his physical examination. Hence. private respondent was included in the petitioner’s payroll. National Labor Relations Commission and Armando Dolina Cortes. his employment was extended for another 6 months which appointment was described as permanent. The training agreement bound PAL to provide regular and permanent employment to Dolina upon the completion of the training course. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 209 . the Department of Labor lifted the preventive suspension and ordered petitioner to reinstate Dolina to his former position with full backwages. effective from the time he was preventively suspended until final resolution of the case by arbitration. This is absolutely in contrast with the principle of “Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Labor. PAL removed Dolina from its payroll and claiming that it was no longer obliged to return Dolina from its payroll since the decision of the Labor Arbiter was a final resolution of the case by arbitration. PAL appealed the case and the decision was reversed. On the third extension of his appointed. PAL filed a clearance application for Dolina’s termination and in the meantime. VS. the parties could not have intended to include in the clause “final resolution of the case by arbitration” the whole adjudicatory process. this petition. even proceedings on certiorari before this court would be embraced by the term “arbitration” and private respondent will continue to receive monthly salary without rendering any service to the petitioner regardless of the outcome of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. J. The Board then decided that Dolina is not qualified for regular employment in the Company. he fell short of the required time and to enable him to complete the requirement. NLRC G. When his appointment was due to expire. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. Dolina completed the course and he was issued a license as Commercial Pilot and PAL extended him a temporary appointment for 6 months for Limited First Officer. For it were so. without having to perform any work for the petitioner.R. 1989 Philippine Airlines Inc. he’s employment was extended again. 55159 December 22. he completed the flying time requirements. Held: The decision requiring the petitioner to restore private respondent to its payroll and ordering the payment of his salaries from the time he was dropped from PAL’s payroll until this case is finally resolved is null and void. Dolina appealed to the NLRC which the latter dismissed the clearance application of PAL. No. When he’s appointment was due to expire again. including appeal.R.

they were entitled to their salaries corresponding to the duration of the strike. dismissed nor suspended.R. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 210 . No. which could be deducted from the accrued leave credits of their members. The PALFU’s decision to strike is the effect of the CIR Order of August 29.the Union not to declare any strike and the Management not to dismiss nor suspend any of its employees nor to declare any lock out.R. if there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay. It is hardly fair or just for an employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on the employer’s time. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: SSS vs. considering that the situation was not a direct consequence of the employer’s lockout or unfair practice. 1968 enjoining the parties. SSS Supervisors’ Union-CUGCO G. With this. 1982 Social Security System SSS Supervisors’ Union-CUGCO and Court of Industrial Relations Melencio-Herrera. that under the circumstances. J. which was equally faultless. In this case. L-31831 October 23. willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out. The SSS and the PALFU had a disagreement concerning the interpretation of the provisions of their CBA.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P.. for the sake of industrial peace. But neither should the burden of the economic loss suffered by them be shifted to their employer. filed an Urgent Petition to declare the strike illegal. Held: According to the doctrine of “Fair day’s wage for a Fair day’s labor”. it is fair that they won’t be receiving their salary for those days they did not work. The SSS. The respondent Union filed a Motion for Intervention in the said case alleging that it had not participated in the strike. the failure to work on the part of the members of the respondent Union was due to circumstances not attributable to themselves. the SSS. Facts: The members of the respondent Union did not work during the 17-day strike declared in 1968 by the rank and file Union (the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions <PALFU>).to maintain the status quo. Issue: Whether or not the members of the respondent Union who admittedly did not work during the 17day strike conducted by the PALFU is entitled to their salaries. that it’s members wanted to report for work but were prevented by the picketers from entering the work premises. unless of course the laborer was able. in that same case.

under Article 13(b). Issue: Whether or not Article 13(b) of the Labor Code is applicable in determining the liability of the private respondent. without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency. 1981. However. Facts: Four informations were filed on January 9. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE VS. hiring or procuring of workers”. transporting. J. an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the “canvassing. DOMINGO PANIS G. contracting. The position of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article 16 of the Labor Code and not under Article 13(b). utilizing.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. It merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers. Domingo Panis. The words “shall be deemed” create that presumption. thus. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 211 . operate a private fee-charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses from and promising employment in Saudi Arabia to four separate individuals. enlisting. in consideration of a fee. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) win constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G.R. Branch III and Serapio Abug Cruz. presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of ZAmbales and Olongapo City. L-58674-77 July 11. violating Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code. 1990 People of the Philippines Hon. in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whim. Held: Article 13(b) of the Labor Code was merely specified to create a presumption. Nos. there would be illegal recruitment only “whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised of offered any employment for a fee”. The private respondent filed a motion to quash alleging that the information do not constitute an offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations and according to him.R. Article 13(b) is somehow applicable since Article 39 in relation to Article 16 punishes acts of recruitment without proper authority. The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers.

or Holy Week vacations but ordering the said college to pay the faculty members their regular hourly rate on days declares as special holidays or for some reason classes are called off or shortened for the hours they are supposed to have taught. Facts: Petitioner is a non-stock. National Alliance of Teachers and Office Workers filed a complaint against the college when the latter failed to pay them the required holiday pay. except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than 10 workers. They sign contracts before the start of the semester. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. In the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. irrespective of the actual number of working days in a month without deduction for holidays. Collegiate faculty of Jose Rizal College who by contract are paid compensation per student contract hour are not entitled to unworked holiday pay considering that these regular holidays have been excluded in the programming of the student contract hours. every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays. (b) personnel on daily basis who are paid on actual days worked and they received un-worked holiday pay. They shall. however. and Section 8. Under par. irrespective of the number of working days in a month. Book III of the IRR states the holiday pay of certain employees in which under par. the personnel of Jose Rizal College who are paid their wages daily are entitles to be paid the 10 unworked regular holidays according to the pertinent provisions of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. 1987 Jose Rizal College National Labor Relations Commission and National Alliance of Teachers/Office Workers Paras. Christmas. Issue: Whether or not the collegiate faculty according to their contracts is paid per lecture hour are entitled to unworked holiday pay. NLRC held that collegiate faculty is entitled to holiday pay.R number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: JOSE RIZAL COLLEGE VS. this petition. and. are presumed to be already paid the 10 paid legal holidays and are no longer entitled to the separate payment for the said regular holidays.R. Rule IV. The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision with regards to the collegiate faculty. whether extensions of class days be ordered or not. a. it stated that the faculty and personnel of Jose Rizal College who are paid their salary by the month uniformly in a school year. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 212 . in case of extensions said faculty members shall likewise be paid their hourly rates should they teach during said extensions. non-profit educational institution.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. NLRC AND NAT/OFFICE WORKERS G. private school teachers. including faculty members of colleges and universities. No. without deduction for holidays. L-65482 December 1. and (c) collegiate faculty who are paid on the basis of student contract hour. J. Held: The NLRC rendered a new decision exempting the college from paying hourly paid faculty members their pay for regular holidays. a. be paid for the regular holidays during Christmas vacations etc. It has three groups of employees categorized as follows: (a) personnel on monthly basis. who receive their monthly salary uniformly throughout the year. whether the same be during the regular semesters of the school year or during semestral. may not be paid for the regular holidays during semestral vacations. Article 94 of the Labor Code states the right to holiday pay. Hence.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Under these provisions. the faculty members are entitled for un-worked holiday pay. and thus this was clearly in their minds when they entered into the teaching contract. However. certainly the latter do not expect payment for said un-worked days. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 213 . the law is silent with respect to the faculty members paid by the hour who because of their teachings contracts are obliged to work and consent to be paid only for work actually done. Regular holidays specified as such by law are known to both school and faculty members as no class days.

he claimed the cash equivalent of what he believed to be his accumulated vacation and sick leave credits during the entire length of his service with the company. J. Hence. However. PHILIPPINE CARPET MANUFACTURING CORPORATION G.. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G.R. as well as the privilege of converting the same into cash upon retirement. The corporation appealed the decision and the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. 2005 Donald Kwok Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corporation Callejo. only regular employees and managerial and confidential employees falling under Category I were entitled to vacation and sick leave credits. 1981. the corporation has ratified such contracts. In the present case. Lim. the Court cannot presume the existence of such privileges. The petitioner. The respondent corporation refused to accede to the petitioner’s demand claiming that the latter is not entitled to it. based on the documentary and testimonial evidence on record. 080. The petitioner filed a complaint before the NLRC. The petitioner failed to convince the Court that the actual findings of the CA were arbitrary. No.00. the petitioner appealed the NLRC’s decision to the CA but the CA affirmed the NLRC’s decision. Contracts entered into by a corporate officer or obligations or prestations assumed by such officer for and in behalf of such corporation are binding on the said corporation only if such ofiicer acted within the scope of his authority or if such officer exceeded the limits of his authority. 546.00 plus interest. the petitioner relied principally on his testimony to prove that Lim made a verbal promise to give him vacation and sick leave credits. Held: The petition is denied. It was further pointed out that as per Memorandum dated November 6. 546. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner. The respondent denied all of these and claimed that petitioner’s demand was without legal basis. Sr. The corporation was directed to pay the petitioner the amount he was demanding plus interest and 10% attorney’s fees. especially considering that such privileges are not inherent to the positions ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 214 . Facts: Donald Kwok and his father-in-law. to the cash value of his vacation and sick leave credits in the total amount of P7. The petitioner was burdened to prove not only the existence of such benefits but also that he is entitled to the same. whose position did not fall under Category I was not entitled to the benefits under the said memorandum. established the Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Company in 1965.R. The Court agrees that those who belong to the upper corporate echelons would have more privileges. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: DONALD KWOK VS. this petition. 080. 149252 April 28. The petitioner retired 36 years later and upon retirement. He claimed that Lim made a verbal promise to give him unlimited sick leave and vacation leave benefits and its cash conversion upon his retirement or resignation without the need for application therefor. along with some other stockholders.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. which the total amount reached P7. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled. Patricio L.

The amount which the petitioner is demanding is baseless. there is no way to determine the actual number of leave credits he is entitled to.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION occupied by the petitioner in the respondent corporation. the promise cannot bind the company in the absence of any Board resolution to that effect. Regarding the verbal promise that Lim made to the petitioner. there is no proof that petitioner has filed vacation and sick leaves with the company’s personnel department. there is no evidence that he complied with the cut-off dates for the filing of the cash conversion of vacation and sick leaves. In a testimonial evidence. Without a record of petitioner’s absences. the petitioner’s money claim have already been barred by the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Even assuming that the petitioner is included among the regular employees referred in the memorandum. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 215 . This being so. the petitioner is aware that he is not covered of the Memorandum granting the PCMC employees the conversion of their unused vacation and sick leaves into cash. The personal act of the company president cannot bind the corporation. Additional to that.

Without doubt. Facts: Petitioner Norma Mabeza and her co-employees at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio City were asked by the hotel’s management to sign an instrument attesting to the latter’s compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard provision. Held: The NLRC’s decision is reversed. this petition. she alleged underpayment of wages. as she refused to go to the City Prosecutor’s Office.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. Peter Ng. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: NORMA MABEZA VS. the act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer observed labor standard provisions of the law when he might not have. service incentive leave pay. NLRC G. 13th month pay. Without satisfying these requirements. No. the ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 216 . She appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Issue: Whether or not the dismissal by the private respondent of petitioner constitutes an unfair labor practice. she filed a complaint against the management for illegal dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Baguio City. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities. electric consumption and water she received during the period of computations. such facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements. together with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employees’ scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. First. Second. The pivotal question in any case where unfair labor practice on the part of the employer is alleged is whether or not the employer has exerted pressure. the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employee’s ages.R. She attempted to return to work but the hotel’s cashier told her that she should not report to work and instead continue with her unofficial leave of absence. 118506 April 18.R. The instrument provides that they have no complaints against the management of the Hotel Supreme as they are paid accordingly and that they are treated well. The petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go to the City’s Prosecutor’s Office to confirm the veracity and contents of the affidavit as instructed by management. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the hotel management on the ground of loss of confidence. The labor arbiter’s contention that the reason for the monetary benefits received by the petitioner between 1981 to 1987 were less than the minimum wage was because petitioner did not factor in the meals. against his employee’s right to institute concerted action for better terms and conditions of employment. proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. That same day. she was ordered by the hotel management to turn over the keys to her living quarters and to remove her belongings to the hotel’s premises. in their Answer. argued that her unauthorized leave of absence from work is the ground for her dismissal. Three days after her attempt to return to work. night differential and other benefits. J. She then filed a leave of absence which was denied by her employer. 1997 Norma Mabeza National Labor Relations Commission and Peter Ng/Hotel Supreme Kapunan. In addition to that. interference or coercion. which was supported by his filing of criminal case for the alleged qualified theft of the petitioner. non-payment of holiday pay. lodging. He raises a new ground of loss of confidence. He even maintained that her alleged of underpayment and non-payment of benefits had no legal basis. in the form of restraint. hence.

The criterion in making a distinction between the two not so much lies in the kind but the purpose. A benefit or privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the employer is not a facility. the food and lodging. These requirements were not met in the instant case. Private respondent failed to present any company policy to show that the meal and lodging are part of the salary. or electricity and water consumed by the petitioner were not facilities but supplements. Considering. More significantly.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION provision of deductible facilities must be voluntary accepted in writing by the employee. therefore. facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. such as the private respondent’s hotel. He also failed to provide proof of the employee’s written authorization and he failed to show how he arrived at the valuations. Finally. their ready availability is a necessary matter in the operations of a small hotel. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 217 . that hotel workers are required to work on different shifts and are expected to be available at various odd hours.

” The court holds that respondents NLRC’s order for the continued payment of Dolina’s salaries from he was dropped from the PAL’s payroll until the case is finally resolved is contrary to law and established jurisprudence and the NLRC acted in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order. J. Issue: Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that private respondent Dolina was entitled to his salaries from the time he was dropped from PAL’s payroll until this case is finally resolved. When his appointment was due to expire. 55159 December 22. the Department of Labor lifted the preventive suspension and ordered petitioner to reinstate Dolina to his former position with full backwages. VS. Dolina completed the course and he was issued a license as Commercial Pilot and PAL extended him a temporary appointment for 6 months for Limited First Officer. However. his adaptability rating was found unacceptable. In lieu of reinstatement and the payment of his backwages. Facts: Armando Dolino was admitted to the PAL Aviation School for training as a pilot. When Dolina took a psychological examination. For it were so. NLRC G. The Board then decided that Dolina is not qualified for regular employment in the Company. Dolina appealed to the NLRC which the latter dismissed the clearance application of PAL. including appeal. he’s employment was extended again. 1989 Philippine Airlines Inc. On the third extension of his appointed. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. PAL filed a clearance application for Dolina’s termination and in the meantime.R.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. When he’s appointment was due to expire again. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 218 . his employment was extended for another 6 months which appointment was described as permanent. Pending his physical examination. The training agreement bound PAL to provide regular and permanent employment to Dolina upon the completion of the training course. this petition. No. even proceedings on certiorari before this court would be embraced by the term “arbitration” and private respondent will continue to receive monthly salary without rendering any service to the petitioner regardless of the outcome of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. private respondent was included in the petitioner’s payroll. National Labor Relations Commission and Armando Dolina Cortes. INC. without having to perform any work for the petitioner. Dolina must be restored to the payroll and paid for his salaries from the date he was dropped from the PAL’s payroll.R. for as long as one of the parties appeal to the NLRC and until the case is finally resolved by this court. Held: The decision requiring the petitioner to restore private respondent to its payroll and ordering the payment of his salaries from the time he was dropped from PAL’s payroll until this case is finally resolved is null and void. effective from the time he was preventively suspended until final resolution of the case by arbitration. he completed the flying time requirements. Hence. Dolina was placed under preventive suspension. PAL removed Dolina from its payroll and claiming that it was no longer obliged to return Dolina from its payroll since the decision of the Labor Arbiter was a final resolution of the case by arbitration. This is absolutely in contrast with the principle of “Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Labor. he fell short of the required time and to enable him to complete the requirement. PAL appealed the case and the decision was reversed. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. the parties could not have intended to include in the clause “final resolution of the case by arbitration” the whole adjudicatory process. he was still short of the minimum flying time requirement and he was extended again. In entering into agreement.

Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) win constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. J. Domingo Panis. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: PEOPLE VS. under Article 13(b). DOMINGO PANIS G. The words “shall be deemed” create that presumption. the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. operate a private fee-charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses from and promising employment in Saudi Arabia to four separate individuals. presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of ZAmbales and Olongapo City. there would be illegal recruitment only “whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised of offered any employment for a fee”. enlisting. However. utilizing. Issue: Whether or not Article 13(b) of the Labor Code is applicable in determining the liability of the private respondent. in consideration of a fee. Held: Article 13(b) of the Labor Code was merely specified to create a presumption. The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of workers. hiring or procuring of workers”. an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the “canvassing. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whim. L-58674-77 July 11. Branch III and Serapio Abug Cruz. The private respondent filed a motion to quash alleging that the information do not constitute an offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations and according to him. thus. Facts: Four informations were filed on January 9. transporting.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug. without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency. 1990 People of the Philippines Hon.R. 1981. Nos. violating Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code. contracting. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 219 .R. Article 13(b) is somehow applicable since Article 39 in relation to Article 16 punishes acts of recruitment without proper authority. It merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers. The position of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article 16 of the Labor Code and not under Article 13(b).

petitioners were told to proceed to the police station for investigation on the report that they sold some of their fish-catch at midsea. The Labor Arbiter rendered a joint decision dismissing all the complaint of the petitioners. Eladio Calderon started as mechanic on April 16. 1990 Alipio R. Jose Pama was employed on September 29. De Guzman Fishing Enterprise. Jose Parma. The petitioners. The employment arises from contract of hire. Nicanor Francisco. Eladio Calderon. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 220 . this petition. Issue: Whether or not the fishermen-crew members of the trawl fishing vessel 7/B Sandyman II are employees of its owner-operator.R. whether or not they were illegally dismissed from their employment. 1972 while Eleuterio Barbin was hired as winchman on April 15. 1983. Jaime Barbin. L-72654-61 January 22. The complaint was dismissed because there were no witnesses that would support the company’s allegation. The petitioners denied the charge claiming that the allegation was a countermove because of the formation of their union. and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. further contending that they were only engaged in a joint venture. Jaime Barbin started as a pilot of the motor boat until he was transferred as a master fisherman to the fishing vessel 7/B Sandyman II. Hence. express or implied. Petitioner Alipio Ruga was hired on September 29. 1974 as assistant engineer. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: ALIPIO R. were not allowed to return to the fishing vessel to resume their work on that same day. Philip Cervantes and Eleuterio Barbin National Labor Relations Commission and De Guzman Fishing Enterprises and/or Arsenio de Guzman Fernan. Petitioners appealed the case to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision that a joint fishing venture and not employer-employee relationship exist between the private respondent and the petitioners. 1976. On September 11. 1968 until he was promoted as chief engineer of the fishing vessel. RUGA ET AL. 1974 as patron/captain of the fishing vessels. The company denied the petitioners being their employees. NLRC G. (c) the power of dismissal. In determining the existence of employer-employee relationship. however. While tenure or length of employment is not considered as the test of employment. Records show in the instant case that petitioners were directly hired by the general manager of the company and its operations manager. the elements that are generally considered are the following: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee. no employer-employee relationship could exist. one of several fishing vessels owned by the De Guzman Fishing Enterprises which is primarily in the fishing business with port and office at Camarines Sur. In the absence of hiring. and if so. VS. Laurente Bautu.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. Each of the them filed a complaints for illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th month pay. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. emergency cost-of-living allowance and service incentive pay with the Ministry (now DOLE).R. nevertheless the hiring of petitioners to perform work which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of private respondent for a period of 8-15 years since 1968 qualify them as regular employees within the meaning of Article 281 of the Labor Code as they were indeed engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual fishing business or occupation of private respondent. (b) the payment of wages. J. Philip Cervantes was hired as winchman on August 1. No. Held: The petitioners were illegally dismissed from their employment. Ruga. Facts: The petitioners were the fishermen-crew members of 7/B Sandyman II.

Flores ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 221 . Ladylynne P.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION The virtual dismissal of petitioners from their employment was characterized by undue haste when less extreme measures consistent with the requirements of due process should have been first exhausted. In that sense. the dismissal of petitioners was tainted with illegality.

Each of the petitioners was receiving a monthly salary of P40. At the last hearing of the case. Some salesmen do not receive any basic salary but depend on commission and allowances or commissions alone. receiver. No. The nature of the work of a salesman and the reason for such type of remuneration for services rendered demonstrate clearly that the commission are part of petitioners’ wage and salary. and the petitioners.R. and F. Hence.00 plus commissions for every sale they made. they argued that they should be granted a separation pay. filed with the Department of Labor (Regional Office No. Under the CBA entered by the Zuellig Inc. The petitioners appealed to the NLRC but it was denied.E. when the same is calculated as a percentage on the amount of his transactions or on the profit to the principal. Any employee. Insofar as whether the allowances should be included in the monthly salary of petitioners for the purpose of computation of their separation pay is concerned. it is proper to define first commission. his separation pay.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. The Labor Arbiter rendered his decision directing the company to pay the complainants separation pay equivalent to their one month salary (exclusive of commissions. in Article XIV. broker or bailee. NLRC. including probationary employment. sickness. Romeo Cipres and Amancio Manuel National Labor Relations Commission (First Division). Medialdea. who is separated from employment due to old age. One month of salary as used in this paragraph shall be deemed equivalent to the salary at date of retirement. executor. Inc. the petitioners argued that the company is not suffering any losses and the real reason for their termination was their membership in the union. compensation or reward of an agent. NLRC (FIRST DIVISION) G. are part of petitioners’ wage and salary.R. 4) a clearance to terminate the services of petitioners Jose Songco. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: JOSE SONGCO VS. Petitioners’ contention that in arriving at the correct and legal amount of separation pay due to them. allowances. J. 1990 Jose Songco. Black’s Law Dictionary defined commission as the recompensed. years of service shall be deemed equivalent to total service credits. etc. factor. their basic salary. Section 1(a). in the computation of backwages and separation pay. Romeo Cipres and Amancio Manuel due to alleged financial losses. to his full and complete satisfaction. L-50999 March 23. 000. this petition. however. Some salesman do not received any basic salary but depend on commission and allowances or commissions ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 222 . whether under the Labor Code or the CBA. Book VI of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code. account must be taken not only of the basic salary of petitioner but also of her transportation and emergency living allowances. Issue: Whether or not earned sales commissions and allowances should be included in the monthly salary of petitioners for the purpose of computation of their separation pay. Petitioner Romeo Cipres filed a Notice of Voluntary Abandonment and Withdrawal of petition contending that he had received. Labor Arbiter Flavio Aguas. the petitioner manifested that they no longer contesting their dismissal. a fraction of at least six months being considered one year. salesman. earned sales commissions and allowances should be added together.) for every year of service that they have worked with the company. 76721. Other basis for petitioners’ contention are Article 284 of the Labor Code with regards to reduction of personnel and Sections 9(b) and 10 of Rule 1. In the issue of whether commission should be included in the computation of their separation pay. death or permanent lay-off not due to the fault of said employee shall receive from the company a retirement gratuity in an amount equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service. trustees. Facts: Zuellig (M) Inc. this has been settled in the case of Santos vs. However. Zuellig (M). Held: The petition is granted.

In the computation thereof. these should be included in their separation pay. although an employer-employee relationship exist. since the commissions in the present case were earned by actual market transactions attributable to petitioners. it is ruled then that. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 223 . NLRC. the commissions also claimed by petitioner (override commission plus net deposit incentive) are not properly includible in such base figure since such commissions must be earned by actual market transactions attributable to petitioner. Applying this by analogy.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION alone. what should be taken into account is the average commissions earned during their last year of employment. In Soriano v.

J. dismissed nor suspended. which could be deducted from the accrued leave credits of their members. The SSS.the Union not to declare any strike and the Management not to dismiss nor suspend any of its employees nor to declare any lock out.R. that under the circumstances. It is hardly fair or just for an employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on the employer’s time. willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out. The SSS and the PALFU had a disagreement concerning the interpretation of the provisions of their CBA. considering that the situation was not a direct consequence of the employer’s lockout or unfair practice. if there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay. But neither should the burden of the economic loss suffered by them be shifted to their employer. L-31831 October 23. unless of course the laborer was able. 1968 enjoining the parties.. that it’s members wanted to report for work but were prevented by the picketers from entering the work premises. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. With this. they were entitled to their salaries corresponding to the duration of the strike.R. 1982 Social Security System SSS Supervisors’ Union-CUGCO and Court of Industrial Relations Melencio-Herrera. filed an Urgent Petition to declare the strike illegal. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 224 . Issue: Whether or not the members of the respondent Union who admittedly did not work during the 17day strike conducted by the PALFU is entitled to their salaries. it is fair that they won’t be receiving their salary for those days they did not work. which was equally faultless. the SSS. Facts: The members of the respondent Union did not work during the 17-day strike declared in 1968 by the rank and file Union (the Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions <PALFU>). Held: According to the doctrine of “Fair day’s wage for a Fair day’s labor”.to maintain the status quo. The PALFU’s decision to strike is the effect of the CIR Order of August 29. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: SSS vs. In this case. in that same case. The respondent Union filed a Motion for Intervention in the said case alleging that it had not participated in the strike. SSS Supervisors’ Union-CUGCO G. No. the failure to work on the part of the members of the respondent Union was due to circumstances not attributable to themselves. for the sake of industrial peace.

and the operator of the coastwise vessels should continue giving the benefits. Wherefore. that the petitioners’ threatened then to accept the reduction of salaries. on their defense. It was found out that the meals were freely given to crew members prior to the effectivity of the Minimum Wage Law while they were on the high seas not as part of their wages but as a necessary matter in the maintenance of the health and efficiency of the crew members during the voyage. and not supplements which. Issue: Whether or not the required meals which the petitioner company deducted from the salary of the employees is considered as facilities. the laborer would spend and pay them just the same. finding out that the meals or food in question are not facilities but supplements. CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION G. 1963 State Marine Corporation and Royal Line. They had a CBA with the Cebu Seamen’s Association. according to Section 19 of the Minimum Wage Law.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. On September 12. Held: Supplements constitute extra remuneration or special privileges or benefits given to or received by the laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or wages. Cebu Seamen’s Association Paredes. J. number: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: STATE MARINE CORPORATION VS. Facts: The petitioners were engaged in the business of marine coastwise transportation. marine engineers and unlicensed crew members in question. The petitioner. to pay the sum of P0. stated that they have suffered a financial losses in the operation of their vessels and there is no law which provides for the payment of sick leave or vacation leave to employees of private firms. are items of expense necessary for the laborer’s and his family’s existence and subsistence so that by express provisions of law. Inc. were mere facilities which should be deducted from wages.R. No. should not be deducted from such wages.40 for every meal. the petitioners dismissed the captain. on the other hand. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: G. should be returned to them. they have always observed the Eight-hour labor Law and that overtime does not apply to those who provide means of transportation. they form part of the wage and when furnished by the employer are deductible therefrom. observed by other shipowners. The deductions therein made for the meals given after August 4. Facilities. while the masters and officers were required to pay their meals and that because the captain had refused to yield to the general reduction of salaries. Hence. It is argued that the food or meal given to the deck officers. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 225 . since if they are not so furnished. that after the Minimum Wage Law had taken effect. The decision ruled in favor of the respondent union. and not supplements. the respondent union filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that the officers and men working on board the petitioners’ vessels have not been paid their sick leave. the petitioners required their employees on board their vessels. vacation leave and overtime pay. that with regards to their overtime pay. L-12444 February 28.R. this petition. 1951. 1952. the petition is dismissed.

Hence. Inc.) Ponente: Gutierrez. which the latter rendered a decision directing Filipro Inc. Jr. Issue/s: (1) Whether or not Nestlé’s sales personnel are entitled to holiday pay. Under Article 82. INC. Moreover. (FORMERLY FILIPRO. Filipro Inc. night differential. BENIGNO VIVAR. merchandisers and medical representatives from the award of the holiday pay and deduction from the holiday pay award of overpayment for overtime. filed a motion for clarification requesting the limitation of award to 3 years. The respondent arbitrator ruled that the sales personnel are field personnel and are not entitled to holiday pay. truck drivers. subject only to the exclusions and limitations specified in Article 82 and such other legal restrictions as are provided for in the Code. under Rule IV. INC. vacation and sick leave pay due to the use of the divisor 251.R.. the exclusion of salesmen. and (2) Whether or not. Both Filipro and the UFE agreed to submit the case voluntary arbitration and appointed respondent Benigno Vivar. the divisor should be change from 251 to 261 days. as voluntary arbitrator. Inc.. (formerly Filipro. night differential. 79255 Date: January 20. J. if they are entitled to such holiday pay.. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NESTLE PHILIPPINES. No. Inc. Facts: The respondent. (Nestle Philippines. Jr. even if they report to the office before 8:00 am prior to the field work and come back at 4:30 pm really spend the hours in between in actual field work. Even if there’s an 8:00 am to 4:00 or 4:30 pm working period of the said sales personnel. filed with the NLRC a petition for declaratory relief seeking a ruling on its rights and obligations respecting claims of its monthly paid employees for holiday pay.) GR number: G. 1992 Petitioner: Union Filipro Employees (UFE) Respondent: Benigno Vivar. JR. Jr. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: UNION FILIPRO EMPLOYEES (UFE) VS. He even ruled that the 251 divisor should be changed to 261 and ordered the reimbursement of overpayment for overtime. field personnel are not entitled to holiday pay. this petition. to pay its monthly-paid employees holiday pay pursuant to Article 94 of the Code. National Labor Relations Commission and Nestle Philippines.” The law requires that the actual hours of work in the field be reasonably determined. Filipro Inc. they are still considered “field personnel whose actual work in the field cannot be determined. Held: Sales personnel are not entitled of holiday pay. vacation and sick leave benefits due to the use of 251 divisor. The company has no way of determining whether or not these sales personnel. sales representatives.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. Field personnel is defined as 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.). Book II of the Implementing Rules provides the coverage of the holiday pay which states that rules on holiday pay shall ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 226 .

” Petitioner contends these sales personnel are strictly supervised as shown by the SOD (Supervisor of the Day) schedule.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION apply to all employees except “Field personnel and other employees whose in time and performance is unsupervised by the employer.. The purpose of this schedule is merely to ensure that the sales personnel are out of the office not later than 8:00 am and are back in the office not earlier than 4:00 pm. With regards the change of divisor from 251 to 261 is modified since the change would result in a lower daily rate which is violative of the prohibition on non-diminution of benefits found in Article 100 of the Labor Code. this SOD does not at least signify that these sales personnel’s time and performance are supervised. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 227 . however.

However. the petitioner argued that the company. using the “314 factor” already gave complete payment of all compensation due to its workers. Flores 2011 – 0080 Case title: WELLINGTON INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION VS.R. 114698 Date: July 3. TRAJANO. and 34 others Ponente: Narvasa. Wellington argued that the monthly-paid employees already includes holiday pay for all regular holidays and there is no legal basis for the finding of alleged non-payment of regular holidays falling on a Sunday. 1995 Petitioner: Wellington Investment and Manufacturing Corporation Respondent: Cresenciano B. is nullified and set aside. Held: Regional Director’s decision. Apparently the monthly salary was fixed by Wellington to provide for compensation for every working day of the year including holidays specified by law and excluding only Sundays. Wellington Flour Mills owned by the petitioner-company was found non-payment of regular holidays falling on a Sunday for monthly-paid employees. But still. receiving a fixed monthly compensation. except in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than 10 workers.R. The Wellington had been paying its employees a salary of not less than the statutory minimum wage and that the monthly salary. Elmer Abadilla. it is paying for all the days of a year with the exception only of 51 Sundays.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ladylynne P. It further contends that it pays its monthly paid employees a fixed monthly compensation using the “314 factor” which undeniably covers and already includes payment for all the working days in a month as well as all the 10 un-worked regular holidays within a year. number: G. CRESENCIANO B. ELMER ABADILLA AND 34 OTHERS G. No. paid was not less than the statutory minimum wage multiplied by 365 days divided by 12.J. Petitioner appealed and was acted on by the respondent Undersecretary. this petition. even if the worker does not work on these regular holidays. thus. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 228 . Every worker should be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays. affirmed by the Undersecretary. Regional Director’s decision was affirmed. is entitled to an additional pay aside from his usual holiday pay whenever a regular holiday falls on a Sunday. Under-Secretary of Labor and Employment. Issue: Whether or not a monthly-paid employees. Hence. Wellington leaves no day unaccounted for. Trajano. C. Facts: By virtue of the routine inspection conducted by a Labor Enforcement Officer. The Regional Director ordered the petitioner to pay the employees additional compensation corresponding to 4 extra working days.

Almendral Respondents: Sanidad. Facts: This is an appeal by certiorari against a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. We. Neither may it be correctly contended that the demand for increase is due to an alleged pernicious practice. 602. check off. Pedro Lopez and Artemio A. This is true not only as to food but as to everything else — education.58 for food. such as free medical care. The respondent court found that P2. therefore. entertainment. and so hearings were held and evidence submitted on the latter. (e) no dismissal without prior just cause and with a prior investigation. the most important provisions of which were those fixing the minimum wage for the laborers at P3.20 as the minimum wage. Ayson and Casia Ponente: Labrador. medicine. and that respondent union made the demand in accordance with a pernicious practice of claiming more after an original demand is granted. to take care of contingencies such as increase of prices of commodities and desirable improvement in his mode of living. Frequent demands for increase are indicative of a healthy spirit of wakefulness to the demands of a progressing and an increasingly more expensive world. and the other were rejected. and hospitalization. that it is not justifiable to fix a wage higher than that provided by Republic Act No. etc. clothing. declaring that additional compensation representing efficiency bonus should not be included as part of the wage.58 is the minimum amount actually needed by the laborer and his family. etc. It is contended by petitioner that as the respondent court found that the laborer and his family at least need the amount of P2. (d) right to a closed shop. this should be the basis for the determination of his wage. etc. Gardoce 2011 – 0159 ATOK BIG WEDGE MINING CO.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Benelyn Joy D. this should be the basis for the determination of his wage. not what he actually spends.50 in wages. That the P3 minimum wage fixed in the law is still far below what is considered a fair and just minimum is shown by the fact that this amount is only for the year after the law takes effect. INC. find no reason or ground for disturbing the finding contained in the decision fixing the amount of P3. ATOK BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION G. On September 4. (c) various privileges. (b) commutation of sick and vacation leave if not enjoyed during the year. No. J. Some of the demands were granted by the petitioner. demand was submitted to petitioner by respondent union through its officers for various concession. The minimum must be fair and just. 1950. After the hearing the respondent court rendered a decision. L-5276 March 3. Issue: Whether or not the contention by petitioner that as the respondent court found that the laborer and his family at least need the amount of P2. over and above the minimum. as thereafter the law fixes it at P4.20. 1950.58 for food.R. The law guarantees the laborer a fair and just wage. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 229 . not what he actually spends Held: The petition is dismissed.. 1953 Petitioners: Vicente Hilado. That does not mean that it is his actual expense. A person's needs increase as his means increase. and making the award effective from September 4. The "minimum wage" can by no means imply only the actual minimum. Some margin or leeway must be provided. among which were (a) an increase of P0. VS. It is against these portions of the decision that this appeal is taken.

EMMANUEL TAN. JR. ZOSIMO ALMOCERA. MILAGROS CATALAN. EDNA DELOS REYES. ALAN MILANO. LEONARDA KAPUNGAN. VILMA GOMEZ CHUA. RODRIGO BACALSO. LEONARDO SAGARIO. ELMA OCAMPO. EDWARD YAP. DANILO TERANTE. ROTELLO ILUMBA. MIGUEL CABAL. 1988 Petitioner: CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CIT) Respondents: HON. BLAS OPLE. ELDEFONSO BURIAS. MARIA MONSANTO. VOLTAIRE DELA CERNA. ESMERALDA ABARQUEZ. ROGER BAJARIAS. NOE RODIS. JOSE MA. FELICISIMO TESALUNA. REYNITA VILLACARLOS Ponente: Cortes. GREGORIO ASIA. JUSTINIANA LARGO. ROMERO BALATUCAN. FRANKLIN LAUTA. MAGDALENO VERGARA. TERESITA JUNTILLA. ROBERTO CABARRUBIAS. OPLE G. NATALIO PLAZA LUZPURA QUIROGA. PACHECO ROMERO. JOSE DAKOYKOY. WEMINA VILLACIN. LORETTA CUNANAN. AMADEA GALELA. RONALD LICUPA. ESTELLA. DELLO SABANAL. SARAH SALINAS. RAMON PARADELA. NORMA LUCERO. GIL O VILLANUEVA. R. REOSEBELLA AMPER. ANASTACIA BLANCO. GEORGE CATADA. LEONCIA ABELLAR. RENATO SOLATORIO. VICTOR COQUILLA. HELEN CALVO TORRES. DEMOSTHENES REDOBLE. ESTHER CA VITLIANA VENERACION.. GEORGE ORAIS. ZENAIDA BACALSO. RUBEN GALLITO. MA. CORAZON CASENAS.LETICIA SERRA. REYNALDO NOYNAY. JEOGINA GOZO. GERARDO LAYSON. EVELYN LACAYA. JULIETA TATING. TERESITA OBANDO. BERNARDO BALATAYO.. CARMELITA LADOT. MELBA QUIACHON. PATERNO WONG. EMERGENCIA ROSELL. VIRGINIA RANCES. ERNESTORES SANANAM. TEODORICO JARAYMUNDO ABSIN. DOLORES VILLONDO. FLORES DELFIN. ELIODORO MENDEZ. CANDELARIO DE DIOS. ROWENA VIVARES. ASUNCION ABAYAN. YOLANDA TABLANTE. FELICISIMO DELMUNDO. ESTEFA OLIVARES.. JR. TERESITA ESPINO. MAC ARTHUR DACUYCUY ACOMPANADA. RODRIGO ALIWALAS. ZOSIMO CUNANAN. QUILIANO LASCO. ADORACION LANAWAN. RUDY MANEJA. RODOLFO POL. RAYMOND PAUL LOGARTA. 1987 were filed and questions not clearly raised as issues or dealt with in the main petitions but which are necessary for the full resolution of the cases are presented in the following: ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 230 . JOSE VERALLO. MACRINA YBARSABAL. Ministry of Labor and Employment. BERNARDO PILAPIL. REGINO CASTANEDA. GERONIDES ANCOG. ARSENIO ABELLANA. RODRIGO GONZALES. LINDA LAYAO. L-58870 April 15. SONIA ARTIAGA. J. CHAVEZ. CONSUELO JAVELOSA. MORRISON MONTESCLAROS. JR. TRINIDAD ADLAWAN. EMMANUEL CHAVEZ. VICENTE TAN. COSMENIA SAAVEDRA. VIRGILIO LIBETARIO. ANGEL COLLERA. ANATOLIA MENDEZ. GRETA PEGARIDO. GEORGIA BAS. in his capacity as Minister. DEMOCRITO TEVES. RENE BURT LLANTO. JULIUS ABELLA.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Benelyn Joy D. BASILIO CABALLES. FELISA VERGARA. LES. Facts: Motions for Reconsideration and Clarification in four of these six consolidated cases decided by the Court on December 18. NECITA TRINIDAD. ELEAZAR PANIAMOGAN. No. CARMENCITA G. FE ELIZORDO ALCANTARA. SIEGFREDO TABANAG. MERCIA TECARRO. PANFILO CANETE. SERGIO GALIDO. DOLBATAYOLA VICENTE DELANTE. ELVIE GALANZA. JULIETA AQUINDE. CRISPINA PALANG. ERLINDA BURIAS. EDGARDO CONCEPCION. ELNORA MONTERA. JUDALINE MONTE. Gardoce 2011 – 0159 CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. REYNA RAMOS. LUCINO TAMAOSO. REMEDIOS QUIROS. ELISA BADANA. EDUARDO TABLANTE.

Movant alleges that pursuant to an agreement with the members of the Union. Invoking Article 292 of the Labor Code. 1983 before the Regional Office. No. as amended. 70832) The petitioners express doubt on the applicability of the three-year period of prescription under the Labor Code.R. Nos. inasmuch as the original complaint was filed on February 17. No. he filed the complaint for unpaid holiday pays. 1980-1981. II. Herminio Z. 68345) The original complaint in this case which covered claims for the school years 1979-1980. The respondent Espiritu Santo Parochial School Faculty Association takes the contrary view by arguing that the whole ninety percent (90%) incremental proceeds from tuition fee increases should be the subject to the computation the ten percent (10%) negotiation fee. Petitioners and respondent Espiritu Santo Parochial School share the opinion that the negotiation fee of ten percent (10%) should not be charged against the sixty percent (60%) incremental proceeds from tuition fee increases on the ground that this is not a bargainable matter as it has already been fixed by law.R. 451 with the Department of Labor. Dec. 1981-1982 and 1982-1983 was filed on February 17. Money claims which accrued more than three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint are barred by prescription. petitioner school submits that all claims prior to February 17. Fabros Case (G. underpayment of thirteenth (13th) month pay and for violation of Pres. Far Eastern University Case (G. 451. 1980 have already prescribed. The claims which gave rise to all these cases are clearly money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship and thus falls under the coverage of Article 292 of the Labor Code. A Motion for Issuance of An Order Awarding Attorney's Lien was filed by petitioner Union's former counsel. 1980 have indeed already prescribed. the claims prior to February 17. The Labor Arbiter in ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 231 . IV. the amount of the difference. No. Dec. 442 (Labor Code). hence.R. 1987 Decision affirmed this award with the modification that only members of the bargaining unit should be made to pay this assessment. Artide 292 of the Labor Code expressly provides that the period within which to file actions for money claims which accrued during the effectivity of the Labor Code is three (3) years from the accrual of the cause of action. This Court in its December 18. 76521) This case concerns the award of ten percent (10%) of the backwages payable to all members of the bargaining unit as negotiation fee which covers attorney's fees. The present source of ambiguity is the basis for compute the ten percent (10%) negotiation fee. agency fee and the like.R. 69224-25) The Court notes the Motion for Clarification of Judgment filed by counsel for petitioner Union as regards the payment of the " transportation allowance" which was held to be an equivalent an order requiring respondent Far Eastern University to pay its employees who have been paid such transportation allowance less than one-twelfth (1/2) of the latter's basic vary. Atty. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION I. In the instant case. III. Divine Word College Case(G. There is no doubt that the three-year period within which to file actions involving money claims arise out of an employer-employee relationship fixed by Article 292 of Pres. Florendo. Biscocho Case (G. only thirty percent (30%) should be subject to the computation of the ten percent (10%) negotiation fee. No. 1983. No. equally applies to claims for the incremental proceeds arising from tuition fee increases under Pres. The agreement which is attached to the motion provides that the prosecution of the Union members' claim is on a contingent fee basis in an amount equivalent to thirty percent (30%) of whatever may be recovered relative to Id claim. Dec.

another lawyer entered his appearance for the appellant Union thereby substituting Atty. 68345). 1987 so that all claims of private respondents prior to February 17. Dec.1987 so that claims for the school year 1974-1975 shall be considered prescribed. Herminio Z. Issue: Whether or not salary must be excluded in allowances Held: In the Biscocho case. 6922425). (1) to MODIFY the Court's Decision of December 18. No. 1980 shall be considered prescribed. In the Far Eastern Universitycase (G. Florendo. the amount of the difference in thirteenth (13th) month pay subject to the three-year period of prescription under the Labor Code. to CLARIFY the following points: A. Nos.R. (2) to CLARIFY that Far Eastern University's remaining liability for the sixty percent (60%) allotment of the incremental proceeds shall be limited only to the portion of said sixty percent (60%) which answered for the increases in allowances and other benefits under Pres. The ten percent (10%) negotiation fee should be computed only on the amount in excess of the sixty percent (60%) portion allocated for teachers and other school employees under the law. (G. 1980 Order awarded the Union's claim for payment of legal holiday and thirteenth (13th) month pay but dismissed its claim under Pres. No. Dee. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 232 . Pending the appeal. 76521). (3) to ORDER respondent Far Eastern University t0 pay its employees who have been paid the transportation allowance in an amount less than one-twelfth (1/12) of their basic salary. B. Florendo perfected the partial appeal and memorandum for complainants-appellants with the National Labor Relations Commission. however. No. (1) to MODIFY the Court's Decision of December 18.R. and (2) to ORDER a recomputation of the actual incremental proceeds received from tuition fee increases. 451. The ten percent (10%) negotiation fee should be computed on the above amount for the period starting school year 1985-1986 and ending school year 1987-1988.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION his March 10. Florendo to Attorney's fees. (4) to NOTE the two (2) motions for recording of attorney's lien and to REMAND to the National Labor Relations Commission the matter of recording attorney's lien and the determination of the matter of entitlement of Atty. Atty. No. In the Divine Word College of Legaspi case (G.R. 451.

766. at the rate of P660.00 monthly) which amount he received up to June 30.. Decedent was then paid the money value of his accumulated leaves.00 per annum (P60. decedent's salary was increased to P720. we cannot sanction appellant's proposition that it would eventually and gradually implement the Minimum Wage Law. is not to seek an excuse from implementing the law but. de Racho and the decedent. Issue: Whether or not the shortage and lack of available funds and expected revenue of a municipality validly exempt from complying with the Minimum Wage Law Held: The appealed judgment is affirmed. J. To uphold such defense of lack of available funds would render the Minimum Wage Law futile and defeat its purpose. based on the monthly wage rate of P120. To excuse the defendant municipality now would be to permit it to benefit from its non-feasance. the Court of First Instance of Isabela ruled that defendant Municipality of Ilagan must pay P1. Based on the foregoing facts. This also disposes of the implication appellant is trying to make that its duty to pay minimum wages is not a statutory obligation which would command preference in the municipal budget and appropriation ordinance. On July 1. 1957 to May 23. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 233 . were spouses and had five minor children. Defendant's remedy.R. Lack of funds of a municipality does not excuse it from paying the statutory minimum wages to its employees." The law — insofar as it affects government employees — took effect in 1952.00 to plaintiff representing the wage differentials and adjusted terminal leave of the decedent from December 9. 1958. 1958. VDA. 1960. to upgrade and improve its tax collection machinery with a view towards realizing more revenues. Plaintiff then filed on December 9.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Benelyn Joy D.P. it could for the present forego all non-essential expenditures. MUNICIPALITY OF ILIGAN G. Isabela. 1968 Petitioner: JUANA T. Manuel Racho. 1954 the decedent was appointed as market cleaner in the Municipality of Ilagan. Facts: Plaintiff Juana T. Decedent died intestate at Ilagan. L-23542 January 2. Gardoce 2011 – 0159 DE RACHO VS. On July 1. No. It should have been implemented — or at least steps to implement it should have been taken — right then. after all. therefore. It would also make the effectivity of the law dependent upon the will and initiative of said municipality without statutory sanction. is a mandatory statutory obligation of the municipality. Vda. as the lower court suggested.00 monthly) by virtue of a promotional appointment extended to him by the Municipal Mayor. J. "if and when its revenues can afford. which.00 pursuant to the Minimum Wage Law.00 per annum (P55. Moreover. DE RACHO Respondent: MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN Ponente: Bengzon. Or. 1960 a claim for salary differentials with the Regional Office of the Department of Labor which dropped the case later for lack of jurisdiction.

COMM. the private respondent was ordered reinstated to his former position with full back wages. The private respondent ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 234 . We have held that where the failure of workers to work was not due to the employer's fault. HON.75 days of attendance in 1982 due to absences. Facts: On July 11.R No.05 broken down as follows: salaries — P1.993.433. without loss of seniority rights and benefits accruing to him.00. J. The petitioner appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the order of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the appeal. and 13th month pay — P407. Issue: Whether or not the computation of back wages should be based on daily rather than on monthly pay schedules Held: The petition is granted. 1987 Petitioner: DURABUILT RECAPPING PLANT & COMPANY and EDUARDO LAO. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA DURABUILT and REYNALDO BODEGAS Ponente: Gutierrez. In a decision rendered by the Labor Arbiter. a complaint for illegal dismissal was filed by respondent Reynaldo Bodegas.834. Jr. It would neither be fair nor just to allow respondent to recover something he has not earned and could not have earned and to further penalize the petitioner company over and above the losses it had suffered due to lack of raw materials and the energy-saving programs of the government. from the time he was terminated up to the time he is actually reinstated. CASTRO. 76746 July 27. The Labor Arbiter denied the opposition to the computation. GULOY. ECOLA — P1. The petitioners failed to file a seasonable appeal and entry of final judgment. against petitioner Durabuilt. GENERAL MANAGER Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Benelyn Joy D.. VS NLRC G. Bodegas is entitled only to the amount of P3. HON. RICARDO C. Gardoce 2011 – 0159 DURABUILT RECAPPING PLANT AND CO. 1983. According to the petitioner. The petitioner filed its opposition to the computation on the ground that it contemplated a straight computation of twenty six (26) working days in one month when the period covered by the computation was intermittently interrupted due to frequent brownouts and machine trouble and that respondent Bodegas had only a total of 250.50.55. the burden of economic loss suffered by the employees should not be shifted to the employer. a tire recapping company. ARBITER AMELIA M. Each party must bear his own loss.

such basis is more realistic and accurate. as in the case at bar. The computation of back wages should be based on daily rather than on monthly pay schedules where.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION cannot be allowed to enrich himself at the expense of the petitioner company. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 235 .

QUISUMBING in his capacity as the Secretary of Labor and Employment. such personnel being exempt from otherwise applicable laws and regulations attending their employment.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Benelyn Joy D. transportation. except laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees. HON. and INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL. The Acting secretary upheld the point-of-hire classification for the distinction in salary rates. TRAJANO in his capacity as the Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment. taxes. BRIAN MACCAULEY in his capacity as the Superintendent of International School-Manila. Ponente: Kapunan. LEONARDO A. 2000 Petitioner: INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE) Respondents: HON.R. Inc. classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School grants foreignhires certain benefits not accorded local-hires. is a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. Facts: Private respondent International School. 128845 June 1. These include housing. Gardoce 2011 – 0159 INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE) VS. INC. AL. Foreign-hires are also paid a salary rate twenty-five percent (25%) more than local-hires. under terms and conditions that are consistent with accepted international practice. To enable the School to continue carrying out its educational program and improve its standard of instruction. DR. The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty. Issue: Whether there is difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 236 . G. A perusal of the parties' 1992-1995 CBA points us to the conditions and provisions for salary and professional compensation wherein the parties agree as follows: All members of the bargaining unit shall be compensated only in accordance with Appendix C hereof provided that the Superintendent of the School has the discretion to recruit and hire expatriate teachers from abroad. J. The Acting Secretary of Labor found that these non-Filipino local-hires received the same benefits as the Filipino local-hires. No. shipping costs. Section 2(c) of the same decree authorizes the School to employ its own teaching and management personnel selected by it either locally or abroad. The School justifies the difference on two "significant economic disadvantages" foreign-hires have to endure. from Philippine or other nationalities. and home leave travel allowance. CRESENCIANO B. Petitioner claims that the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of higher salaries to foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination. HON. LEANDRO QUISUMBING ET. namely: (a) the "dislocation factor" and (b) limited tenure.

" The State. The local-hires perform the same services as foreign-hires and they ought to be paid the same salaries as the latter. The Constitution enjoins the State to "protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. has the right and duty to regulate the relations between labor and capital.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: The petition is given due course. shipping costs. These relations are not merely contractual but are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts. Should such contracts contain stipulations that are contrary to public policy. In this case. "to afford labor full protection. If an employer accords employees the same position and rank. courts will not hesitate to strike down these stipulations. which they perform under similar working conditions. must yield to the common good. such as housing. collective bargaining agreements included. For the same reason. The need of the School to attract foreign-hires is recognized.". we find the point-of-hire classification employed by respondent School to justify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid classification. taxes and home leave travel allowances. Both groups have similar functions and responsibilities. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 237 . The dislocation factor and limited tenure affecting foreign-hires are adequately compensated by certain benefits accorded them which are not enjoyed by local-hires. therefore. salaries should not be used as an enticement to the prejudice of local-hires. the "dislocation factor" and the foreign-hires' limited tenure also cannot serve as valid bases for the distinction in salary rates. the presumption is that these employees perform equal work. transportation. There is no evidence here that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively than the local-hires.

It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay. Only appellant Agustin testified for the defense. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. 1987.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Benelyn Joy D. being an employee of the Goces. Dan Goce and Nelly D. Agustin Ponente: Regalado. Hence. As correctly held by the trial court. Eventually. Gardoce 2011 – 0159 PEOPLE VS. appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which she was a part. Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. the trial court ordered the case archived but it issued a standing warrant of arrest against the accused. Rogelio Salado. As such. It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her money she demanded in order to be so employed. 1998. Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Paranaque police.R. it was therefore logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses. one of the offended parties. No. they being the owners of the agency. requested for a copy of the warrant of arrest. The trial court rendered judgment finding appellant guilty as principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Issue: Whether or not Agustin’s act of introducing the couple Goce falls within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code Held: The appealed judgment of the court is affirmed. 113161 August 9. Thereafter. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 238 . 1995 Petitioner: People of the Philippines Respondents: Loma Goce y Olalia. Facts: On January 12. She asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover Placement Agency. She was therefore engaging in recruitment agency. Information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in a large scale was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the RTC. On January 21. There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send worker abroad. on learning the whereabouts of the accused. Her counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested that it be set for hearing. as well as the papers that they had to submit. a warrant of arrest was issued against the three accused but not one of them was arrested. J. GOCE G. The testimonial evidence hereon shows that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement agency.

In the instant case. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is exempted from paying the minimum wage to its employees. hence the money claims of complainants lack factual and legal basis. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 239 . 144619 Date: November 11. ALFREDO OFIALDA. 1993. respondents countered that they employ less than ten (10) persons. the respondents raised the defense of exemption from coverage of the minimum wage law and in support thereof alleged that they regularly employed less than ten (10) workers to serve as basis for their exemption under the law. AL. A. apart from their allegation. owner of C. private respondents alleged that petitioner Cohu. GR NO. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Victoria G. J. 2005 Petitioner: C.: G. hence covered by the minimum wage law. OFIALDA ET. respondents presented no evidence to show the number of workers they employed regularly. 1990. May 14. respectively. nevertheless the individual respondent did not pay his workers the legal rates and benefits due them since their employment. holiday pay. PLANAS COMMERCIAL VS NLRC. Planas Commercial. nonpayment of overtime pay. However. Facts: On September 14. PLANAS COMMERCIAL and/or MARCIAL COHU Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division). In their position paper.. Rudy Allauigan and Alfredo Ofialda (private respondents) together with 5 others filed a complaint for underpayment of wages. that private respondents were hired by petitioners on January 14. 1991. Dioleto Morente. Guarino 2011-0131 Case Title: C. is engaged in wholesale of plastic products and fruits of different kinds with more than 24 employees. complainants alleged that despite employing more than twenty-four (24) workers in his establishment.R. By way of answer. as helpers/laborers. service incentive leave pay and premium pay for holiday and rest day and night shift differential against petitioners with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. 1990 and July 1. that they were paid below the minimum wage law for the past 3 years. they (respondents) must prove that they employed less than ten workers. instead of more than twenty-four (24) workers as alleged by the complainants. DIOLETO MORENTE and RUDY ALLAUIGAN Ponente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ.

Section 4 of the Act provides for exemption from the coverage. it must be shown that the establishment is regularly employing not more than ten (10) workers and had applied for exemptions with and as determined by the appropriate Regional Board in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations issued by the Commission. Whenever an application for exemption has been duly filed with the appropriate Regional Board. No. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 240 . Retail/service establishments regularly employing not more than ten (10) workers may be exempted from the applicability of this Act upon application with and as determined by the appropriate Regional Board in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations issued by the Commission.A. Petitioners’ main defense in controverting private respondents’ claim for underpayment of wages is that they are exempted from the application of the minimum wage law. action on any complaint for alleged non-compliance with this Act shall be deferred pending resolution of the application for exemption by the appropriate Regional Board. thus the burden of proving such exemption rests on petitioners. thus: Sec.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: R. 6727 known as the Wage Rationalization Act provides for the statutory minimum wage rate of all workers and employees in the private sector. the same was granted. including family drivers. for a retail/service establishment to be exempted from the coverage of the minimum wage law. 4. (c) Exempted from the provisions of this Act are household or domestic helpers and persons employed in the personal service of another. Petitioners had not shown any evidence to show that they had applied for such exemption and if they had applied. Clearly.

shall be converted to cash and shall be paid at the end of the said one year period.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Victoria G. and if the same is not enjoyed within one year period of the current year. Sick Leaves — The Company agrees to grant 15 days sick leave with pay each year to every regular non-intermittent worker who already rendered at least one year of service with the company. J Facts: Petitioner and private respondent and the exclusive collective bargaining agent of the rank and file workers entered into collective bargaining agreement under Sections 1 and 3. — All intermittent field workers of the company who are members of the Regular Labor Pool shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per year of service with pay under the following schedule based on the number of hours rendered including overtime." Section 3. such sick leave can only be enjoyed upon certification by a company designated physician. 1993 Petitioner: DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES Respondents: RUBEN V. the coverage of the said benefits was expanded to include the "present Regular Extra Labor Pool as of the signing of this Agreement. Upon its renewal. Article VIII thereof. provides. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 241 . No. in his capacity as an accredited Voluntary Arbitrator and THE ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU-TUCP) Ponente: ROMERO. as revised. Section 3. 102132 Date: March 19. thus: Section 1. provide for sick leave with pay benefits each year to its employees who have rendered at least one (1) year of service with the company.: G.R. ABARQUEZ. are entitled to the herein sick leave privilege. And provided however. However. any unenjoyed portion thereof. Article VIII. — All intermittent field workers of the company who are members of the Regular Labor Pool and present Regular Extra Labor Pool as of the signing of this agreement shall be entitled to vacation and sick leaves per year of service with pay under the following schedule based on the number of hours rendered including overtime. ABARQUEZ GR No. thus: "Section 3. that only those regular workers of the company whose work are not intermittent. Guarino 2011-0131 Case Title: DAVAO INTEGRATED PORT STEVEDORING SERVICES VS.

The Union objected said discontinuance because it would violate the principle in labor laws that benefits already extended shall not be taken away and that it would result in discrimination between the non-intermittent and the intermittent workers of the petitioner-company. however. granted and paid the cash equivalent of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefits of some intermittent workers. being an existing benefit.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Also. violated Article 100 of Labor Code of the Philippines Held: There is a violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines committed by the petitioner. Article VIII of the 1989 CBA from the other related section on sick leave with pay benefits. or diminish such benefits. the petitioner-company may not unilaterally withdraw. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 242 . Any unenjoyed portion thereof at the end of the current year was converted to cash and paid at the end of the said one-year period pursuant to Sections 1 and 3. namely: (1) the regular nonintermittent workers or those workers who render a daily eight-hour service to the company and are governed by Section 1. thus it must yield to the common good. The Union brought it before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and said public respondent issued an award in favour of the Union. these may be deemed to have ripened into company practice or policy which cannot be peremptorily withdrawn. upon the latter's resignation). It is thus erroneous for petitioner to isolate Section 1. Article VIII of the 1989 CBA. Under the circumstances. Mr. all the field workers of petitioner who are members of the regular labor pool and the present regular extra labor pool hours were extended sick leave with pay benefits. on several instances in the past. this instant petition. specifically Section 3 thereof. Cecilio Beltran. It was said that CBA is not an ordinary contract but impressed with public interest. 1989 or those workers who have irregular working days and are governed by Section 3. It must be noted that the 1989 CBA has two (2) sections on sick leave with pay benefits which apply to two (2) distinct classes of workers in petitioner's company. and (2) intermittent field workers who are members of the regular labor pool and the present regular extra labor pool as of the signing of the agreement on April 15. Issue: the Whether or not the petitioner. Article VIII of the CBA. The commutation of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave with pay benefits of the intermittent workers or its conversion to cash was. Benjamin Marzo (who replaced Mr. in refusing to convert unused leave to cash. Hence. stopped the payment of its cash equivalent on the ground that they are not entitled to the said benefits under Sections 1 and 3 of the 1989 CBA. Article VIII of the 1989 CBA. It is a fact that petitioner-company had. in its attempt to justify the discontinuance or withdrawal of the privilege of commutation or conversion to cash of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefit to regular intermittent workers because well-settled is it that the said privilege of commutation or conversion to cash. Jr. discontinued or withdrawn when petitioner-company under a new assistant manager.

It should be left to the discretion of the company on how to improve or mollify the same" ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 243 . NLRC GR No: G. 1989. seeks to annul. Inc. Marathon collective bargaining negotiations between the parties ensued. the decision dated August 8. After the parties had filed their pleadings. the petitioner filed this petition for certiorari. Guarino 2011-0131 Case Title: NESTLE PHILIPPINES VS. At most the company can only be directed to maintain the same but not to change its terms.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Victoria G. alleging that since its retirement plan is non-contributory. UFE ( Union of Filipro Employees ) was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all regular rank-and-file employees at the petitioner's Cagayan de Oro factory. whose pertinent disposition regarding the union's demand for liberalization of the company's retirement plan for its workers. 1987.J INC Facts: Nestlé Philippines. Retirement Plan The company shall continue implementing its retirement plan modified as follows: a) for fifteen years of service or less — an amount equal to 100% of the employee's monthly salary for every year of service. the grant thereof being not a contractual obligation but merely gratuitous. it (Nestlé) has the sole and exclusive prerogative to define the terms of the plan "because the workers have no vested and demandable rights thereunder. The employees at Cabuyao resorted to a "slowdown" and walk-outs prompting the petitioner to shut down the factory. provides as follows: 7. No. b) more than 15 but less than 20 years — 125% of the employee's monthly salary for every year of service. the NLRC issued a resolution on June 5. On December 14. 1989. Respondents: THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES Ponente: GRIÑO-AQUINO. c) 20 years or more — 150% of the employee's monthly salary for every year of service. 1991 Petitioner: NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES. insofar as it modified the petitioner's existing non-contributory Retirement Plan. Thereafter. as well as its Cebu/Davao Sales Office..R. Four (4) collective bargaining agreements separately covering the petitioner's employees in its several factories all expired on June 30. but led to filing complaints. 1989 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). 91231 Date: February 4. on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

or the NLRC. Since the retirement plan has been an integral part of the CBA since 1972. the financial ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 244 . The NLRC correctly observed that the inclusion of the retirement plan in the collective bargaining agreement as part of the package of economic benefits extended by the company to its employees to provide them a measure of financial security after they shall have ceased to be employed in the company. The latter may not unilaterally withdraw. medical and hospitalization plans. As a matter of fact. The benefits and concessions given to the employees were based on the NLRC's evaluation of the union's demands. health and dental services. is a valid CBA issue. the evidence adduced by the parties. has no merit for employees do have a vested and demandable right over existing benefits voluntarily granted to them by their employer. the Union's demand to increase the benefits due the employees under said plan. does not make it a non-issue in the CBA negotiations. and competitive with those existing in the industry. that the employees contribute nothing to the operation of the plan. gives "a consensual character" to the plan so that it may not be terminated or modified at will by either party The fact that the retirement plan is non-contributory. is not well-taken. subparagraph [i] of the Labor Code). The union's original proposal was to modify the existing plan by including a provision for early retirement. 13th and 14th month pay. reward their loyalty. the impassé on the retirement plan become one of the issues certified to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. after the Secretary had assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute (Art. that employees have no vested or demandable right to a noncontributory retirement plan. mid-year bonuses. nor whimsical. but the company was adamant. capricious. rice allowances. eliminate or diminish such benefits. Consequently. 263. almost all of the benefits that the petitioner has granted to its employees under the CBA — salary increases. The petitioner's contention. The union thereafter modified its proposal. The company did not question the validity of that proposal as a collective bargaining issue but merely offered to maintain the existing non-contributory retirement plan which it believed to be still adequate for the needs of its employees.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Issue: Whether or not Retirement Plan. seniority pay. NLRC erred insofar as it modified the petitioner's existing non-contributory Held: The Court agrees with the NLRC's finding that the Retirement Plan was "a collective bargaining issue right from the start". The NLRC's resolution of the bargaining deadlock between Nestlé and its employees is neither arbitrary. The company's contention that its retirement plan is non-negotiable. boost their morale and efficiency and promote industrial peace. sick & other leaves with pay — are non-contributory benefits. The deadlock between the company and the union on this issue was resolvable by the Secretary of Labor. vacation.

the economic conditions prevailing in the country as they affect the purchasing power of the employees as well as its concommitant effect on the other factors of production. its longterm viability. Its decision is not vitiated by abuse of discretion. and the recent trends in the industry to which the Company belongs . ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 245 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION capacity of the Company to grant the demands.

Rizal.who were tasked to unload the fish catch from the vessels and take them to the Fish Stall of the petitioner Victoria Tiangco. admitted that they had discontinued their practice of paying a fixed monthly allowance. The petitioners now f iled a petition f or certiorari and prohibition. No. Guarino 2001-0131 Case Title: R. His business is capitalized at P2.. The petitioners on th e other hand. Their working hours average four (4) hours a day. and allowances for non-working days.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Victoria G. HON. is a fishing operator who owns th e ReynaldoTiangco Fishing Company and a fleet of fishing vessels engaged in deep-sea fishing which operates from Navotas. 1983 Petitioner: Reynaldo Tiangco and Victoria Tiangco Respondent: Hon. VICENTE LEOGARDO JR GR No. Vicente Leogardo Jr. but which were reduced effective February.: G. TIANGCO AND V.. JR.000. service incentive pay. Victoria Tiangco. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 246 . no allowances” and said that the payment of such allowances will cause losses to their business. is a fish broker whose business is capitalized at P100.R. and differentials in their emergency cost of living allowances.000.00.000. J Facts: The petitioner. They were all working as part -time since their work were limited to days of arrival of the fishing vessels and their working days in a month are comparatively few. denied the laborers’ contention and stated that in addition to their regular daily wage. which directed the petitioners to pay the private respondents their legal holiday pay. Reynaldo Tiangco. 57636 Date: MAY 16. They however. Ponente: CONCEPCION.00 Some of the priv ate respondent s were engaged by Reynaldo Tiangco as batillos. They invoked the principle of “No work. TIANGCO VS. The other private respondents were batillos engaged by Victoria Tiangco. The priv ate respondent s f iled a complaint against the petitioners with the Ministry of Labor and Employment for non-payment of their legal holiday pay and service incentive leave pay. a daily extra pay in amounts ranging from 30centavos to 10 pesos were given to offset the laborers' claim for service incentive leave and legal holiday pay. with preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order to annul and set aside the order of the respondent Deputy Minister of Labor which modified and affirmed the order of Director of the National Capital Region of the Ministry of Labor. as well as underpayment of their emergency cost of living allowances which used to be paid in full irrespective of their working days. 1980. while the petitioner. in contravention of Article 100 of the new Labor Code which prohibits the elimination or diminution of existing benefits.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Issue: Whether the Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment erred in deciding that there is diminution of benefits in the discontinuance of giving of allowance. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 247 .

1976 up to February. particularly Article 100 thereof which prohibits the elimination or diminution of existing benefits. The decision of the Deputy Minister of Labor was modified.D. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 248 . since the petitioners had been paying the private respondents a fixed monthly emergency allowance since November. 1980.D. agreements and voluntary employer practice. as a matter of practice and/or verbal agreement between the petitioners and the private respondents. 1123 also prohibits the diminution of any benefit granted to the employees under existing laws.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: The Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment correctly ruled that. the discontinuance of the practice and/or agreement unilaterally by the petitioners contravened the provisions of the Labor Code. taking into consideration that the respondent employees are employed by different individuals with varying capitalization. 525 and Section 16 pf the Rules on P. Section 15 of the Rules on P.

00 should be multiplied by 30 days to arrive at the monthly COLA rate. To compel the respondent company to use 30 days in a month to compute the allowance and retain 22 days for vacation and sick leave. not just the allowance.R. NLRC GR No: G. NO. GMCR multiplied the P3. the NLRC rev ersed the Labor Arbiter and held that petitioner was guilty of illegal deductions. However. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the monthly COLA should be c omputed on the basis of twenty two (22) days. Guarino 2011-0131 Case Title: GLOBE MACKAY CABLE VS. 74156 Date: JUNE 29. The primordial consideration f or entitlement to COLA is that basic wage is being paid.Sundays and legal holidays "even if unworked.GLOBEMACKAY EMPLOYEES UNION Ponente: MELENCIO. in computing said COLA. Respondent Union disagreed with the computation of the monthly COLA claiming that the daily COLA rate of P3. which cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. upon the following considerations: (1) that the P3. In other words. But this is not fair to complainants. then it must be used for the computation of all benefits. Howev er.00 per day COLA. Issue: Whether or not petitioner. If 30 days is used as divisor. Facts: Wage Order No." (2) that the full allowance enjoyed by monthly-paid employees before the CBA executed in 1982 constituted voluntary employer practice. violated Article 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines Held: There is no violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code on prohibition of wage diminution.00 daily COLA by 22days.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Victoria G.HERRERA.00 daily COLA should be paid and computed on the basis of thirty (30) days instead of twenty two(22) days since workers paid on a monthly basis are entitled to COLA on Saturdays. 6 increased the cost -of-living allowance of non-agricultural workers in the private sector. the payment of COLA is mandated only for the days that the employees are ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 249 . J. in computing COLA based on the number of working days of the company . 6. since the evidence showed that there are only 22 paid days in a month for monthlypaid employees in the company. overtime pay and other benefits is inconsistent and unjust. GMCR had been computing and paying the monthly COLA on the basis of thirty (30) days per month and that this constituted an employer practice. The union alleged furthermore that prior to the effectivity of Wage Order No. which is the number of working days in the company. 1988 Petitioner: GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORPORATION Respondent: NLRC. Petitioner corporation (GMCR) complied with the said Wage Order by paying its monthly-paid employees the mandated P3. not to mention that it will contravene the provision of the parties' CBA. FFW.which should not be unilaterally withdrawn.

which cannot now be unilaterally withdrawn by petitioner.should not be construed as constitutive of voluntary employer practice. it will have to be held that the COLA should be computed on the basis of twenty two (22) days. Payment may be said to hav e been made by reason of a mistake in the construction or application of a "doubtf ul or difficult question o f law. The test of long practice has been enunciated in Oceanic Pharmaceutical Employees Union v s. the monthly wage is divided by the number of actual work days in a month and then. where the company observes a 5-day work week. Payment in f ull by petitioner of the COLA bef ore the execution of the CBA in compliance with Wage Orders Nos. and must be shown to hav e been consistent and deliberate. can be the subject of future re-negotiation. 1 to 5. the payment of COLA is not mandated. or twenty two (22) days a month. petitioner cannot be f aulted f or erroneous application of the law."Since it is a past error that is being corrected.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION paid their basic wage. on the days that employees are not paid their basic wage. by eight (8) working hours. In determining the hourly rate of monthly paid employees for purposes of computing overtime pay. Thus. So that. Peculiar to this case. if not acceptable. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 250 ."Absent clear administrativ e guidelines. he is paid his basic salary rate plus one-half thereof. even if said days are unworked. however.Inciong such that “respondent company agreed to continue giving holiday pay knowing f ully well that said employees are not cov ered by the law requiring payment of holiday pay. no vested right may be said to hav e arisen nor any diminution of benefit under Article 100 of the Labor Code may be said to hav e resulted by virtue of the correction. To be considered as such. If a monthly-paid employee renders overtime work. The CBA is the law between the parties and. it should hav e been practiced ov er a long period of time. is the circumstance that pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Petitioner and Respondent Union. which is the period during which the employees of petitioner receive their basic wage. Adequate proof is wanting in this respect.the monthly basic pay is computed on the basis of five (5) days a week.

However. No." The union reiterated that it had agreed to "retain the old provision of CBA" on the strength of private respondent's "promise and assurance" of an across-the-board salary increase should the government mandate salary increases. the union added that it was charging private respondent with "violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code. 02 dated December 20. 1990.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Victoria G. the RTWPB-NCR issued Wage Order No. Ponente: ROMERO. its officers and Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. On October 15. private respondent adamantly maintained its position on the salary increases it had granted that were purportedly designed to avoid wage distortion. JOSE G. This was followed by Wage Order No. INC.: Date: Petitioner: SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA TOP FORM MANUFACTURING VS. demanded that it should "fulfill its pledge of sincerity to the union by granting an across-the-board wage increases to all employees under the wage orders. as amended.00 daily increase in salary. 1998 SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA TOP FORM MANUFACTURING UNITED WORKERS OF THE PHILIPPINES (SMTFM-UWP). Consequently. moral and exemplary damages. through its legal counsel." It charged private respondent with acts of unfair labor practices or violation of Article 247 of the Labor Code. Inc.00 wage increase was granted across-the-board. Union proposed that any future wage increase given by the government should be implemented by the company across-the-board or non-conditional. DE VERA and TOP FORM MANUFACTURING PHIL. Several conferences between the parties notwithstanding.The union. NLRC G. Management requested the union to retain this provision since their sincerity was already proven when the P25.R. In its position paper. 01 granting an increase of P17. the parties agreed to discuss unresolved economic issues.. specifically "bargaining in bad faith. they demanded that the increase be on an across-the-board basis. Private respondent refused to accede to that demand." and prayed that it be awarded actual. members Facts: Petitioner Samahang Manggagawa sa Top Form Manufacturing — United Workers of the Philippines (SMTFM) was the certified collective bargaining representative of all regular rank and file employees of private respondent Top Form Manufacturing Philippines. J. As expected. Instead. HON.00 per day in the salary of workers. At the collective bargaining negotiation. the union requested the implementation of said wage orders. it implemented a scheme of increases purportedly to avoid wage distortion. 113856 September 7. Guarino 2011-0131 Case Title: GR No. 1990 providing for a P12." ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 251 . the union filed a complaint with the NCR NLRC alleging that private respondent's act of "reneging on its undertaking/promise clearly constitutes act of unfair labor practice through bargaining in bad faith.

It has been said that "a sparrow or two returning to Capistrano does not a summer make.00 effective July 1. That there were employees who were granted the full extent of the increase authorized and some others who received less and still others who did not receive any increase at all. would not ripen into what the complainants termed as discrimination. That the implementation of the subject wage orders resulted into an uneven implementation of wage increases is justified under the law to prevent any wage distortion. as well as Article XVII. Section 7 of the existing CBA as herein earlier quoted is likewise found to have no basis in fact and in law. such isolated single act that respondents adopted would definitely not ripen into a company practice. Held: The alleged discrimination in the implementation of the subject wage orders does not inspire belief at all where the wage orders themselves do not allow the grant of wage increases on an acrossthe-board basis. No benefits or privileges previously enjoyed by the employees were withdrawn as a result of the implementation of the subject orders. What the respondents did under the circumstances in order to deter an eventual wage distortion without any arbitral proceedings is certainly commendable. The alleged violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code. The complainants asserted that the company implemented Republic Act No. 1989 on an across-the-board basis.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Private respondent. Likewise. Granting that the same is true. 6727 which granted a wage increase of P25. contended that in implementing Wage Orders Nos." ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 252 . 01 and 02. by refusing to grant an across-the-board wage increase. on the other hand. Issue: Whether or not private respondent violated Article 100 Of the Labor Code of the Philippines. as amended. it had avoided "the existence of a wage distortion" that would arise from such implementation. the alleged company practice of implementing wage increases declared by the government on an across-the-board basis has not been duly established by the complainants' evidence.

the increase provided were followed until RTWPB issued another wage order where it provided for a P 25. Wage Order No.50 per day increase in the salary of employees receiving the minimum wage and increased the minimum wage to P 223. P 30 for three succeeding year. In September 1999. Repondents: COURT OF APPEALS.50/day increase i.00 increase of the salaries receiving minimum wages. 166647 Petitioner: PAG-ASA STEEL WORKS. the petitioner and union entered into an collective bargaining agreement where it provided wage adjustments namely P 15.50 minimum. SR.50 per day increase to all of its rank-and-file employees .50 per day. Held: Company is not obliged to grant the wage increase.50) per day.On November 2000.00/day and none was receiving below P 223.. The union president asked that the wage order be implemented where petitioner rejected the request claiming that there was no wage distortion and it was not obliged to grant the wage increase.00/day the company is not obliged to adjust the wages of the workers. The Petitioner and the union negotiated on the increase. FORMER SIXTH DIVISION and PAG-ASA STEEL WORKERS UNION (PSWU) Ponente: CALLEJO. INC.50 per day. The matter was elevated to CA where it favored the respondents.50 shall receive an increase of Twenty-six Pesos and Fifty Centavos ( P 26. The provision of wage order #8 and its implementing rules are very clear as to who are entitled to the P 26.R." and since the lowest paid is P 250. On the first year. RTWPB of NCR issued a wage order which provided for a P 13. e. Petitioner paid the P 25. Guarino 2011-0131 Case Title: PAG ASA STEEL WORKS VS. The provision in the CBA that "Any Wage Order to be implemented by the Regional Tripartite Wage and Productivity Board shall be in addition to the wage increase adv erted above" cannot be interpreted in support of an across- ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 253 .. A perusal of the record shows that the lowest paid employee before the implementation of Wage Order #8 is P 250. Issue: Whether or not the company was obliged to grant the wage increase under the Wage Order as a matter of practice. CA GR No. This could only mean that the union can no longer demand for any wage distortion adjustment. It is submitted that employers unless exempt are mandated to i mplement the said wage order but limited to those entitled thereto. The union submitted the matter for voluntary arbitration where it favored the position of the company and dismissed the complaint. J. "private sector workers and employees in the National Capital Region receiving the prescribed daily minimum wage rate of P 223.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Victoria G. Facts: Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of steel bars and wire rods while Pag-Asa Steel Workers Union is the duly authorized bargaining agent of the ran-and-file employees. P 25. NCR-08 was issued where it provided the increase of P 26.: G. Petitioner forwarded a letter to the union with the list of adjustments involving rank and file employees.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 254 . Considering wage.and not all employees across the board as respondent Union would want petitioner to do. the giving of the increase should not be by reason of a strict legal or contractual obligation. Wage Order No. NCR 08 clearly states that only those employees receiving salaries below the prescribed minimum wage are entitled to the wage increase prov ided therein. but by reason of an act of liberality on the part of the employer. even if the company continuously grants a wage increase as mandated by a wage order or pursuant to a CBA. Hence. petitioner is not obliged to grant the wage increase to them.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION the-board increase. Moreov er. to ripen into a company practice that is demandable as a matter of right. the same would not automatically ripen into a company practice.

Guarino 2011-0131 Case Title: DARVIN VS. however. Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment.000. contracting. GR No. transporting. two elements need to be shown: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities: and (2) the said person does not have a license or authority to do so. Date: July 13. the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 43 of the Labor Code. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 255 .b.)Any recruitment activities. 1998 Petitioner: IMELDA DARVIN Respondents:HON. hence this petition. the Court found no sufficient evidence to prove that accused-appellant offered a job to private respondent.) any act of canvassing. 38 of the Labor Code provides: a. utilizing.: G.. Held: Art. On appeal. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Ponente: ROMERO. Art. Macaria gave her P150. or procuring workers and includes referrals. Applied to the present case. whether for profit or not: Provided. that any reason person or entity which. is that the private respondent gave accused-appellant P150.. 13 of the Labor Code provides the definition of recruitment and placement as: . contract services. No. to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code. to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant. promising or advertising for employment locally or abroad. It stemmed from a complaint of one Macaria Toledo who was convinced by the petitioner that she has the authority to recruit workers for abroad and can facilitate the necessary papers in connection thereof.000 supposedly intended for US Visa and air fare. In view of this promise. What is established. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.J CA 125044 Facts: Imelda Darvin was convicted of simple illegal recruitment under the Labor Code by the RTC. enlisting.R. In the case. hiring.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maria Victoria G. in any manner. It is not clear that accused gave the impression that she was capable of providing the private respondent work abroad.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 256 . procuring a passport. When the People’s evidence fail to indubitably prove the accused’s authorship of the crime of which he stand accused. But suspicion alone is insufficient. can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. without more. Aside from the testimony of private respondent. airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual. the required quantum of evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION By themselves. there is nothing to show that appellant engaged in recruitment activities. then it is the Court’s duty. At best. and the accused’s right. to proclaim his innocence. the evidence proffered by the prosecution only goes so far as to create a suspicion that appellant probably perpetrated the crime charged.

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS).R.controlled corporations and government agencies. employers already paying their employees a 13th month pay or its equivalent are not covered by this Decree. a 13th-month pay not later than December 24th of every year? HELD: It is the legislature or. GUEVARRA. or even 13th-month salaries to their personnel from their budgetary appropriations. 1975 to the present. 851 that requires all employers to pay the 13th-month pay to their employees with one sole exception found in Section 2 which states that. government salaries and wages have always been lower than salaries.D. PVTA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (AGW). the administrative heads of government and not the collective bargaining process nor the concessions wrung by labor unions from management that determine how much the workers in government-owned or controlled corporations may receive in terms of salaries. petitioners. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (PNB). authorized to exempt other types of employers from the requirement. the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. . PNB-FEMA BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (AGW). No. in proper cases. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS). 1983 ALLIANCE OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS (AGW). METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS and SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS). They state that nowhere in the decree is the secretary. therefore. the Philippine Government Employees Association (PGEA) filed a motion pursuant to P. three weeks. It has been implemented and enforced from December 22. 851 included other types of employers not exempted by the decree.000 a month. vs. Service in the government may at times be a sacrifice but it is also a welcome privilege. and other conditions or terms of employment.THE HONORABLE MINISTER OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT. KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA AT KAWANI NG MWSS (AGW). ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 257 . L-60403 August 3. BALARA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (AGW). 851 is.D. The petitioners contend that Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing P. SSS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (AGW). a correct interpretation of the decree. FACTS: In 1983. Here as in other countries. No. Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. However. 13th month pay. JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (THIRTEENTH MONTH PAY) G. ISSUE: Whether or not the private sectors or of government-owned and . are thereunder obligated to pay their employees receiving a basic salary of not more than P1. the petitioners have shown no valid reason why it should be nullified because of their petition filed six and a half years after the issuance and implementation of the rule.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. wages. No. and bonuses in the private sector. civil servants have no cause for despair. There are government institutions which can afford to pay two weeks. PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION (PVTA) PHILIPPINE NORMAL COLLEGE (PNC). now Minister of Labor and Employment. NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF TEACHERS AND OFFICE WORKERS (AGW). WHEREFORE. POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (PUP). GSIS WORKERS ASSOCIATION (AGW).

Angel A. in view of all the foregoing. Ancheta. Decision was rendered in favor of the private respondent. Respondents.AMERICAN WIRE AND CABLE CO. Petitioner. In 2001. and the giving of service awards violated Article 100 of the Labor Code.. 155059 April 29. They alleged that. GUEVARRA. the American Wire and Cable Monthly-Rated Employees Union and Cable Daily-Rated Employees Union. it cannot be withdrawn from the petitioner at respondent’s whim and caprice. Even assuming that it can be treated as a "bonus. WHEREFORE. FACTS: American Wire and Cable Co. INC. deliberately. which affirmed and upheld the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator.. The benefits in question were given by the respondent to the petitioner consistently. 35% premium pay of an employee’s basic pay for the work rendered during Holy Monday.. Holy Tuesday. are hereby AFFIRMED. 2005 AMERICAN WIRE AND CABLE DAILY RATED EMPLOYEES UNION." the grant of the same. the holding of the Christmas Party and its incidental benefits. necessitating the grant of an increase in the salaries of the said 15 members. and without the consent of the former. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 06 March 2002 and 12 July 2002. 100. which are the ff: Service Award. Holy Wednesday. without valid cause. December 23. an action was filed before the NCMB of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) by the two unions for voluntary arbitration. Two unions in this company. The petitioner submits that the withdrawal of the private respondent of the 35% premium pay for selected days during the Holy Week and Christmas season. JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (EXCEPTIONS) G. may be regarded as part of regular compensation. ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent is guilty of violating Article 100 of the Labor Code. respectively. a Submission Agreement was filed by the parties for Voluntary Arbitration. Christmas Party. when the benefits/entitlements given to the members of petitioner union were withdrawn? HELD: ART.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. by reason of its long and regular concession. PROHIBITION AGAINST ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS. As such. The benefits given by the respondent cannot be considered as a "bonus" as they are not founded on profit. The new job classifications were in the nature of a promotion. 28 and 29. Inc. No. and unconditionally since time immemorial. vs. A promotional increase was asked by the petitioner for fifteen of its members who were given or assigned new job classifications. A motion for reconsideration was filed by both unions and was denied for lack of merit. 26. suddenly and unilaterally withdrew and denied certain benefits and entitlements which they have long enjoyed. 27. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 258 . In 2001. The grant of these benefits was a customary practice that can no longer be unilaterally withdrawn by private respondent without the tacit consent of the petitioner. and THE COURT OF APPEALS. and Promotional Increase.R. as amended.

MANILA. 72616-17 March 8. WHEREFORE. to do piece-work on the farms. whichever is higher and applicable. Guevarra.a weekly subsidy of choice pork meat for only P9. hence. petitioners alleged that the private respondents were not regular workers on their hacienda but were migratory or pakyaw workers who worked on-and-off and were hired seasonally. assuming they were given. in the form of:1. ELOISA SYCIP and LINCOLN SYCIP. basis depending on the total assets or authorized capital stock of the employer. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 259 . INC. were not a proper substitute for the 13th month pay required by law. They admitted that their total assets and authorized capital stock exceeded P2 million. The workers may be identified or determined in the proceedings for execution of the judgment. although the male workers received P10 more or less. 18 employees of the petitioners filed against their employer..free light or electricity. J. service incentive leave pay. petitioners vs.HON. HELD: The respondents argued that they substantially complied with the law by giving their workers a yearly bonus and other non-monetary benefits amounting to not less than 1/12th of their basic salary. 2. The claims for holiday pay. 851. In their answer to the amended complaint. They also alleged that under the decrees.00 per kilo and later increased to P11 per kilo in March 1980.free choice pork meat in May and December of every year. No. MINISTER OF LABOR. The failure of the Minister's decision to identify the pakyaw and non-pakyaw workers does not render said decision invalid. per day. With respect to the complainants' other claims.94 only. the living allowance shall be paid on a monthly. instead of the market price of P10 to P15 per kilo. such benefits in the form of food or free electricity. or only during the milling season. the petition for certiorari is dismissed with costs against the petitioners. 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (THIRTEENTH MONTH PAY) G. under Section 3 of PD No. Jr.: FACTS: In 1980. 1989 FRAMANLIS FARMS. and service incentive leave pay. 4. the petitioners submitted only random payrolls which showed that the women workers were underpaid as they were receiving an average daily wage of P5.all of which were allegedly "the equivalent" of the 13th month pay. they were not entitled to the benefits claimed by them. ISSUE: Whether or not the employees are entitled to their thirteenth month pay. and 3. However. in 1977 they had applied for exemption under PDs 525 and 1123 but no ruling has been issued by the Ministry of Labor on their application. alleging that in 1977 to 1979 they were not paid emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA) minimum wage. respondent GRIÑO-AQUINO. Unfortunately. social amelioration bonus and underpayment of minimum wage were not controverted.R. holiday pay. not percentage.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Alexander O. 13th month pay.

special redundancy benefit. Before the termination of their services. otherwise. GUEVARRA. ANDRADA. WHEREFORE. on the ground that it was a promise of a mere gratuity.. Andrada. so as to give the latter the right to enforce such promise after performance. FACTS: Petitioners were regular employees of respondent. petitioners. the authorities hold that if one enters into a contract of employment under an agreement that he shall be paid a certain salary by the week or some other stated period and. BALTAZARA J. 111744 September 8. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 260 . Lopez. MARCOS. in addition. or which may be claimed to be gratuitous. LTD. They claimed that they should receive their respective service awards and other prorated bonuses which they had earned at the time they were dismissed. if the employee has served during the stipulated time. they would not have been separated from employment. the assailed decision and resolution of respondent National Labor Relations Commission are hereby SET ASIDE and the decision of Labor Arbiter Alex Arcadio Lopez is REINSTATED. that petitioners are not entitled to payment of service awards and other bonuses. 1995 LOURDES G. HELD: A bonus is not a gift or gratuity. over and above the prescribed wage which the employer agrees to pay. LOPEZ AND VILMA L. vs. but is paid for some services or consideration and is in addition to what would ordinarily be given. equivalent to three months’ salary for every year of service.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. in case he serves for a specified length of time. they voluntarily accepted the redundancy benefit package. which entitled the former to other remunerations or benefits. 25 The term "bonus" as used in employment contracts. No. ALEJANDRO T. in lieu of other benefits provided by the company or required by law.. and additional cash benefits. there is no reason for refusing to enforce the promise to pay the bonus. Cruz. also conveys an idea of something which is gratuitous. more than twenty years. a bonus.R. NLRC held that either was there any unwritten agreement between complainants and respondent upon separation. While there is a conflict of opinion as to the validity of an agreement to pay additional sums for the performance of that which the promise is already under obligation to perform. CRUZ. JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (EXCEPTIONS) G. consequently. more than twenty-five years. equity demands that the performance and anniversary bonuses should be prorated to the number of months that petitioners actually served respondent company in the year 1990. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent NLRC committed reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in affirming the validity of the "Release and Quitclaim" and. A special redundancy benefit was paid to them. exactly thirty years. On the contrary. which included payment of accrued vacation leave and fifty percent of unused current sick leave. In the case at bar. This observation should be taken into account in the computation of the amounts to be awarded to petitioners. respondents. but they were dismissed In 1990 when their positions were declared redundant. petitioner Marcos had been in the employ of private respondent for more than twenty years.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O.

After several conferences.. instead. not here. i. Petitioner submits that private respondents cannot claim good faith in staging their strike since the attention of both parties had been called by the conciliator at the hearings before the NCMB to the "non-strikeable" character of the 13th month pay. HON.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. be made on the basis of a full one month basic salary. where these issues can be finally resolved. 1995 ISALAMA MACHINE WORKS CORPORATION. It is there. 851. petitioner. accordingly. FIFTH DIVISION FACTS: In 1987 both petitioner and respondent entered into a collective bargaining agreement. 11 This claim raises factual issues which evidently are still awaiting resolution by the NLRC in the motion for execution now pending before it. in general. Private respondents continue to claim. the questioned decision and resolution of the NLRC are AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that the back salaries ordered to be paid should be limited. Following the signing of the CBA. vs. the corporation paid the workers the 13th month pay based on the average number of days actually worked during the year. the back salaries of the dismissed employee should be limited to three years. WHEREFORE.R. This case arose in 1988 or prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. In 1987. The corporation countered that its own computation of the 13th month pay accorded with the CBA provisions and Presidential Decree No. 851. to furnish the workers with safety shoes and free company laminated IDs and. No. which has taken over the business. private respondent Henry Baygan. to improve the employees' working conditions. the union made repeated demands on the corporation. No costs. given the aforequoted provisions of the law and its implementing rules. 100167 March 2.e. The union filed a notice of strike alleging the commission of unfair labor practice and CBA violation by the corporation. the real reason for the strike is clearly traceable to the unresolved dispute between the parties on 13th month pay differentials under Presidential Decree No. The Court does not see this issue.e. i. is presently owned by one Alfredo Chan and not Charlie Chan of petitioner corporation.. GUEVARRA. ISSUE: Whether or not 13th month pay should be considered a strikeable issue? HELD: In this case. Petitioner tells us that it can no longer accept the strikers due to its decision to close down its operations on account of damages and losses it has incurred because of the strike. without deduction or qualification. and that Golden Engineering. to only three (3) years. following the rule in Maranaw Hotels and Resorts Corporation vs. without deduction or qualification. The union. JR. demanded that the 13th month pay should. to be constitutive of unfair labor practice. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 261 . Court of Appeals. allegedly to no avail. 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (THIRTEENTH MONTH PAY) G. LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. the proper manner of its application and computation. 6715. for it to comply with the CBA provisions.

FACTS: Lexal to reinstate Guillermo Ponseca. confirming the report of its Chief Examiner and Economist. he spent nothing for meals and lodging outside of Manila. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 262 .00 for breakfast. and Judgment is hereby rendered ordering petitioner Lexal Laboratories to pay Guillermo Ponseca. So ordered. vs. No." CIR. the sum of P2. he was allowed a per diem of P4.00 for lunch. his station. 1958 when he ceased reporting for work. Since per diems are in the nature of reimbursement. to November 24. and the resolution of May 22. 1965 that Ponseca was entitled to back wages from November 5. versus Lexal Laboratories and Jose Angeles. entitled "National Chemical Industries Workers UnionPAFLU (Lexal Laboratories Chapter). Whereupon. the order of February 16. Guillermo Ponseca.4 Lexal concedes that whenever its employee. by way of net backpay. its Manager. Ponseca should not be entitled to per diems. For the foregoing reasons. 1968 LEXAL LABORATORIES and/or JOSE ANGELES. there is nothing to be reimbursed. petitioners. 1965 and the resolution of May 22. GUEVARRA. 2002-ULP. ISSUE: Whether or not Guillermo Ponseca is entitled of back wages? HELD: It would seem to us that per diem is intended to cover the cost of lodging and subsistence of officers and employees when the latter are on duty outside of their permanent station. 1963 a day prior to his reinstatement on November 25. JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (EXCEPTIONS) G. to his former position "with full back wages from the day of his dismissal up to the time he is actually reinstated without loss of his seniority rights and of such other rights and privileges enjoyed by him prior to his lay-off. was out of Manila.R.00 broken down as follows: P1. 1965. respondents.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. No costs.00 for dinner. petitioners appealed to this Court from the order of February 16. Therefore. Manager. ruled in its order of February 16. Respondents". 1963. are hereby modified. a dismissed employee. Petitioners vigorously objected to the inclusion of the P4. both of the Court of Industrial Relations. 1965. P1. L-24632 October 26. Ponseca — during the period involved — did not leave Manila.00. P1. and P1. Because he spent nothing.00 per diem in the computation of Ponseca's back wages because the latter "did not actually spend for his meals and lodgings for he was all the time in Manila.00 for lodging. 1965.697. Complainant." CIR brushed this contention aside. in its Case No.NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION-PAFLU (Lexal Laboratories Chapter) and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

FACTS: In 1981. The Marcopper decision is therefore a Court decision but without the necessary eight votes to be doctrinal. as Provincial Commander. seeking to annul the decision of Labor Deputy Minister Amado Inciong granting a 13th month pay to Marcopper employees (in addition to mid. 1981. GUEVARRA. the original decision dismissing the petition in the aforecited Marcopper case had already been promulgated by this Court.C. But a motion for reconsideration filed by Marcopper was pending as of November 30.1981. 3311st P. Six days after. COL. The decision having become final and executory entry of judgment was made. respondents. NFSW cannot insist on its claim that its members are entitled to a 13th month pay in addition to the bonuses already paid by CAC. the petition of Marcopper Mining Corp. milling and amelioration bonuses. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 263 . NFSW struck. OVEJERA. WHEREFORE. NFSW filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) Regional Office in Bacolod City a notice to strike based on non-payment of the 13th month pay. NFSW renewed its demand that CAC give the 13th month pay. After the Marcopper decision had become final. the original decision was affirmed when this Court finally denied the motion for reconsideration. When this agreement was forged on November 30. milling and amelioration bonuses being enjoyed by CAC workers. Command. At any rate. it cannot be said that the Marcopper decision "clearly held" that "the employer is liable to pay a 13th month pay separate and distinct from the bonuses already given. in addition to the Christmas. in view of the rulings made herein. But the resolution of denial was supported by the votes of only 5 Justices. No. In December 1981." within the meaning of the NFSW-CAC compromise agreement. ROGELIO DEINLA. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA (CAC). L-59743 May 31 1982 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (NFSW). This being so. the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.ETHELWOLDO R.R. No costs. milling and amelioration bonuses stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement amounting to more than a month's pay. including the distinguished Chief Justice. CAC is obliged to give its workers a 13th month salary in addition to Christmas.year and Christmas bonuses under a CBA) had been dismissed. the aggregate of which admittedly exceeds by far the disputed 13th month pay? HELD: CAC is obliged to give its workers a 13th month salary in addition to Christmas. JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (THIRTEENTH MONTH PAY) G. vs.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. petitioner. CAC refused. On the votes of only 7 Justices. NFSW struck allegedly to compel the payment of the 13th month pay under PD 851. Negros Occidental. ISSUE: Whether or not under Presidential Decree 851 (13th Month Pay Law).

provided it is done in good faith. ISSUE: Whether or not the members of respondent union are entitled to overtime. respectively. are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE for having been rendered and adopted with grave abuse of discretion. rest day and holiday pay allegedly in violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code. Book III of the same Code. The distinction.Promotion of its employees is one of the jurisprudentially-recognized exclusive prerogatives of management. rest day and holiday pay. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 264 . petitioner. rest day and holiday pay pursuant to the provisions of Articles 87. respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter on the ground that the members of respondent union are not managerial employees. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NBSR SUPERVISORY UNION. petitioner NASUREFCO recognized herein respondent union. WHEREFORE. is puerile and in efficacious. the members of herein respondent union filed a complainant with the executive labor arbiter for non-payment of overtime. Two years after the implementation of the JE Program. 93 and 94 of the Labor Code as amended. to determine the latter's entitlement to the questioned benefits. they are entitled to overtime. On appeal. should have been made along that line and its corresponding conceptual criteria. GUEVARRA. rest day and holiday pay? Whether or not supervisory employees. 1991. in a decision promulgated In 1991 by its Third Division. respondents. Book V of the Labor Code. from rank-and-file to department heads. (PACIWU) TUCP.R. in 1990. is misplaced and inappropriate. as defined in Article 212 (m). and hence are not entitled to overtime rest day and holiday pay? HELD: The distinction made by respondent NLRC on the basis of whether or not the union members are managerial employees. Hence. a corporation controlled by the Government. They used to be paid overtime. Private respondent union represents the former supervisors of the NASUREFCO Batangas Sugar. 1991 and August 30. petitioner implemented a Job Evaluation (JE) Program affecting all employees. private respondent union has miserably failed to convince this Court that the petitioner acted implementing the JE Program. therefore. 6715 allowing supervisory employees to form their own unions. should be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff under Article 82. and the basic complaint of private respondent union is DISMISSED. which was organized pursuant to Republic Act NO. FACTS: Petitioner. as the bargaining representative of all the supervisory employees at the NASUREFCO Batangas Sugar Refinery. Respondent National Sugar refineries Corporation is hereby directed to pay the said penalties. 101761.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. In 1988. March 24. therefore. There is no showing that the JE Program was intended to circumvent the law and deprive the members of respondent union of the benefits they used to receive. No. The JE Program was designed to rationalize the duties and functions of all positions. to distinguish them from a managerial employee. vs. In the case at bar. the impugned decision and resolution of respondent National Labor Relations Commission promulgated on July 19. The controversy actually involved here seeks a determination of whether or not these supervisory employees ought to be considered as officers or members of the managerial staff. It is admitted that these union members are supervisory employees and this is one instance where the nomenclatures or titles of their jobs conform with the nature of their functions. NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORPORATION. In 1990. as defined either under Articles 82 or 212 (m) of the Labor Code. The Batangas refinery was privatized in 1992. JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (EXEPTIONS) G. 1993.

1994 are hereby AFFIRMED. The inclusion of a provision for the continued payment of the year-end bonus in the 1988-1991 CBA of ALPAP and PAL belies the latter contention that the grant of the year-end bonus was intended to be credited as compliance with the mandate to pay the pilots a thirteenth month pay. 1993 and February 28. the peculiar circumstances in this case wavers against the outright application of the rule preventing the imposition of a double burden against the employer who is already paying the equivalent of the thirteenth month pay. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission which in turn affirmed with modifications the decision of the Labor Arbiter. GUEVARRA. vs. petitioner. respondents. (PAL). 114280 July 26. INC. finding no merit in the petitions. However. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 265 . notwithstanding the above disquisitions.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (ALPAP).R. there is no rational basis for withholding from the members of ALPAP the benefit of a year-end bonus is addition to the thirteenth month pay. No. PAL was therefore fully aware that it was legally obliged to grant all its rank and file employees a thirteenth month pay. 1996 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. FACTS: Refusing to pay its pilots their thirteenth month pay for unfair labor practice was filed against Philippine Airlines by the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. and hereby exempt PAL from granting both benefits of a year-end bonus and a thirteenth month pay to its pilots. while the same being granted to the other rank and field employees of PAL. while that of the thirteenth month pay is mandatory in character and definite in its. Disputing PAL's contention.As early as said date. WHEREFORE. the same are hereby DENIED and the Resolutions of public respondent NLRC promulgated on November 23. Moreover. ALPAP argued that the payment of the year-end bonus cannot be equated within the thirteenth month pay since the payment of the former is conditional in character and not fixed in its amount. JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (THIRTEENTH MONTH PAY) G. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of ALPAP and ordered PAL to pay its pilots belonging to ALPAP their thirteenth month pay from 1988 to 1990. ISSUE: Whether or not PAL can claim the exception provided under the law by equation the year-end bonus with the payment of the thirteenth month pay deserves a very close scrutiny in this case? HELD: It appears that the rationale for the grant of the year-end bonus by PAL coincides with the nature of the bonus which can be equated with the payment of a thirteenth month pay.

JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (THIRTEENTH MONTH PAY) G. petitioner. the 13th month pay of employees paid a fixed or guaranteed wage plus sales commission must be equivalent to onetwelfth (1/12) of the total earnings (fixed or guaranteed wage-cum-sales commissions) during the calendar year. No. vs. asked petitioner corporation for payment of 13th month pay computed on the basis of the salesmen's fixed or guaranteed wages plus commissions. which commissions are computed on the selling price of the duplicating machines sold by the respective salesmen. the greater part of the salesmen's wages or salaries being composed of the sales or incentive commissions earned on actual sales closed by them. Private respondent union. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 266 . and hence as part of the "wage" or "salary" of petitioner's salesmen. petitioner failed to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission in rendering its decision dated 17 November 1992. union thereupon instituted a complaint against petitioner corporation for payment of the demand of its salesmen-members for 13th month pay. GUEVARRA. Considering that petitioner has excluded from the computation of the 13th month pay the sales commissions earned by its individual salesmen. ISSUE: Whether or not the appropriate mode of computation of the 13th month pay of the employees who receive a fixed or guaranteed salary plus sales commissions? HELD: In the instant case. To recapitulate. it appears that petitioner pays its salesmen a small fixed or guaranteed wage. Petitioner corporation refused the union's request. we believe and so hold that petitioner must be held liable to pay for the deficiency. Costs against the petitioner.TUPAS. INC. Respondent. there is no question that the sales commissions earned by salesmen who make or close a sale of duplicating machines distributed by petitioner corporation constitute part of the compensation or remuneration paid to salesmen for serving as salesmen.. for and on behalf of its member-salesmen. 86-12. After submission of the parties' respective position papers. Inc.R. respondents. Indeed. 1993 PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS. is a domestic corporation engaged in the distribution of foreign-made copying machines and related consumables. In petitioner's employ are salesmen who are paid a fixed or guaranteed salary plus commissions.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS EMPLOYEES UNION .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. FACTS: Petitioner Philippine Duplicators. 110068 November 11. WHEREFORE. the petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dated 24 October 1989 directing petitioner corporation to pay 13th month pay to its salesmen computed in accordance with the requirements of Explanatory Bulletin No.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied. Maternity premium for works performed on rest days and special holidays pays for regular holidays and night differentials. petitioner. petitioner. premium for work done on rest days and special holidays. vacation or maternity leaves. including pay for regular holidays and night differentials. filed a complaint against San Miguel Corporation. X and dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. No.month pay such items as sick. It is likewise clear that premium for special holiday which is at least 30% of the regular wage is an additional compensation other than and added to the regular wage or basic salary. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on February 14. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 267 . the Orders of the Deputy Labor Minister dated June 7. JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (THIRTEENTH MONTH PAY) G. were not so excluded. No pronouncement as to costs. GUEVARRA. L-49774 February 24. FACTS: In 1977. payments for sick. Herein petitioner appealed from that Order to the Minister of Labor in whose behalf the Deputy Minister of Labor Amado G. it filed the instant petition. including pay for regular holidays and night differentials should be considered? HELD: The all-embracing phrase "earnings and other remuneration" which are deemed not part of the basic salary includes within its meaning payments for sick. respondents. premium for work done on rest days and special holidays. Deputy Minister of Labor and CAGAYAN COCA-COLA FREE WORKERS UNION. private respondent herein. AMADO G. Coca-Cola Free Workers Union. vs. INCIONG. vacation or maternity leaves. 1977 was issued by Regional Office No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. vacation.R. ISSUE: Whether or not in the computation of the 13th-month pay under Presidential Decree 851. 1978 and December 19. alleging failure or refusal of the latter to include in the computation of 13th. or maternity leaves. Inciong issued an Order affirming the Order of Regional Office No. it is hard to find any "earnings and other remunerations" expressly excluded in the computation of the 13th-month pay. 1981 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION (CAGAYAN COCA-COLA PLANT). X where the complaint was filed requiring herein petitioner San Miguel Corporation to pay the difference of whatever earnings and the amount actually received as 13th month pay excluding overtime premium and emergency cost of living allowance. For similar reason it shall not be considered in the computation of the 13thmonth pay.Hon. Then the exclusionary provision would prove to be Idle and with no purpose.WHEREFORE. 1978 are hereby set aside and a new one entered as above indicated. As such they are deemed not part of the basic salary and shall not be considered in the computation of the 13th-month they. An Order 3 dated February 15. 1979 is hereby made permanent.

WHEREFORE. Costs against the respondent union.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Alexander O. Jr. 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (EXCEPTIONS) G. for bonuses are not part of labor standards in the same class as salaries. No. filed a letter-complaint against TRB claiming that first. the management of TRB per memo paid the employees their HOLIDAY PAY." The granting of a bonus is basically a management prerogative which cannot be forced upon the employer "who may not be obliged to assume the onerous burden of granting bonuses or other benefits aside from the employee's basic salaries or wages". had jurisdiction over the money claims of the employees. from two (2) months gross pay to two (2) months basic and year-end bonus from three (3) months gross to only two (2) months. vs. In other respects. Private respondent's contention.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION & TRADERS ROYAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION.. but has withheld from the Union the basis of their computation. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is modified by deleting the award of bonus differentials to the employees for 1986. NLRC rendered a decision in favor of the employees. Guevarra. solely at the instance of the branch manager. the Union. respondents. Second. not the Bureau of Labor Relations. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are guilty of diminution of benefits? HELD: A bonus is "a gratuity or act of liberality of the giver which the recipient has no right to demand as a matter of right". the decision is affirmed. Fourth. cost of living allowances. the diminution of benefits being enjoyed by the employees since time immemorial mid-year bonus. and leave benefits. It is clear from the above-cited rulings that the petitioner may not be obliged to pay bonuses to its employees. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 268 . 88168 August 30. the computation in question has allegedly decreased the daily salary rate of the employees. the petition for certiorari is granted. J. "It is something given in addition to what is ordinarily received by or strictly due the recipient. this petition for certiorari. IN its answer to the union's complaint. Hence. FACTS: In 1986. A motion for reconsideration was filed by TRB but it was denied. 1990 TRADERS ROYAL BANK. which are provided by the Labor Code. petitioner. GRIÑO-AQUINO. the refusal by management to recall active union members from the branches which were being transferred without prior notice. There is merit in the petitioner's contention that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ordering it to pay mid-year/year-end bonus differential for 1986 to its employees. that the decrease in the midyear and year-end bonuses constituted a diminution of the employees' salaries. is not correct. Third. holiday pay. TRB pointed out that the NLRC.R.

1982. premises considered. ISSUE: Whether or not the Christmas bonus can be considered as 13th month pay? HELD: The collective bargaining agreement accords a reward. According to the petitioner. "directing respondent company [now the petitioner to pay the members concerned of complainants union their 7-day wage bonus in accordance with the 1972 CBA from 1975 to 1978. the union went to the labor arbiter for relief. to certain employees. It is claimed. In his decision. It further claims that since 1975. Hence." the new collective bargaining agreement did not refer to the "Christmas bonus" theretofore paid but dealt only with salary adjustments. are hereby AFFIRMED. and its Resolution dated March 23. 1982. For failure of the petitioner to pay the seven-day Christmas bonus for 1975 to 1978 inclusive. The temporary restraining order issued on May 19. in this case.R. This is evident from the stipulation granting the bonus in question to workers "with at least one (1) year of continuous service is a purpose not found in P. The COMPANY agrees to grant all regular workers within the bargaining unit with at least one (1) year of continuous service.THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FACTS: In 1972. for loyalty. it had been paying its employees 13th-month pay pursuant to the Decree. they entered into a collective bargaining agreement for the years from 1979 to 1981. GUEVARRA. 851. a Christmas bonus equivalent to the regular wages for seven (7) working days. L-60337 August 21. the parties entered into an "addendum" stipulating certain wage increases covering the years from 1974 to 1977. The NLRC set aside the decision of the labor arbiter appealed from and entered another one. 1987 UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS (A DIVISION OF UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION).D. imperfectly express. vs. The union appealed to NLRC. therefore. the petitioner and the Universal Corn Products Workers Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement. the collective bargaining agreement in question expired without being renewed. In 1979. that as a consequence of the impasse between the parties beginning 1974 through 1979. 851.The agreement had a duration of three years. in accordance with the 1972 CBA. The fact. WHEREFORE. Like the "addendum. On account however of differences between the parties with respect to certain economic issues. no collective bargaining agreement was in force during those intervening years. 1982 is LIFTED. the labor arbiter ruled that the payment of the 13th month pay precluded the payment of further Christmas bonus. The 1972 agreement is basis enough for such claims for the whole writing is instinct with an obligation. however. JR 2011-0128 ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS (THIRTEENTH MONTH PAY) G. the petition is hereby DISMISSED. the new agreements deliberately excluded the grant of Christmas bonus with the enactment of Presidential Decree No. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 269 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ALEXANDER O. The Decision of the public respondent NLRC promulgated on February 11. there is allegedly no basis for the money award granted by the respondent labor body. Simultaneously. No. that the new agreements are silent on the seven-day bonus demanded should not preclude the private respondents' claims thereon. petitioner.

Payment by result is a method of compensation and does not define the essence of employee-employer relationship. The petitioner denied that the respondent was his employee. No. Tan vs Leovigildo Lagarama 151228 August 15. It is a method of computing compensation.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marc Aerone Paul P. Tan LEOVIGILDO LAGRAMA and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS Mendoza Facts: The Respondent works as a painter. Issue: Was the contention of the petitioner tenable? Held: The court found no merits on the contention of the petitioner.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: Rolando Y. not as basis for determining the existence or absence of employer-employee relationship. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 270 . the Petitioner was the general manager of these theaters. Supreme and Crown Theaters. Imperio 2011-0147 Case Title: G.R. he asserted that the respondent was an independent contractor who did his work according to his methods and that he was paid on a fixed piece-work basis. 2002 Rolando Y. making ad billboards and murals for the motion pictures shown at the Empress.

TAILOR SHOP and/or JOHNNY CO Ponente: Mendoza Facts: Petitioners Avelino Lambo and Vicente Belocura were employed as tailors by private respondents J. The court also distinguished the two categories of employees paid by result. Because the private respondent exercised control over the work of petitioners. They are paid in a piece-work basis.00php Issue: Are the petitioners considered Regular Employees even if they are under piece-work basis? Held: Yes.C. The court declared that they are regular employees. 1999 Petitioner: AVELINO LAMBO and VICENTE BELOCURA Respondent: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and J. first are those whose time and performance are supervised by the employer and second are those whose time and performance are unsupervised. as tailors working in the company’s premises from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm.C.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: Avelino Lambo v NLRC and JC Tailor Shop GR No. Taylor Shop on September 10. 1985 respectively. Regardless of the number of pieces they finished in a day they are given a daily pay of at least 64. Piece Rate Workers ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 271 . 1985 and March 3. They worked from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm daily including Sundays and holidays. The mere fact that they were paid on a Piece-rate basis does not negate their status as a regular employees of the private respondents.: 111042 Date: October 26. according to the style of suits they made.

EUGENIO L. Inc. VEVENCIO TIRO. JANET SANGDANG. LEONORA MENDOZA. GLORIA ESTRABO. National Capital Region). MACARIA G. they are given a daily allowance of three pesos. 1989 Petitioner: MAKATI HABERDASHERY. DIOSANA (Labor Arbiter. They are also required to work from 9:30 am up to 6:00 pm or 7:00 pm from Monday to Saturday and during peak periods even on Sundays and holidays. sewers. provided they report for work before 9:30 am daily. LAURETO. JOSEFINA ALCOCEBA and MARIA ANGELES Ponente: Fernan Facts: The individual complainants have been working for petitioner Makati Haberdashery. ESTER NARVAEZ. INC. book 3. On the other issue. INOCENCIO Respondent: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Issue/s: 1. The respondents claim that they are under paid. LILY OPINA.3. ESTRABO. Does the Employer-Employee Relationship Exist? Held: The essential Employer-Employee Relationship exist. 1.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: Makati Haberdashery. ALFREDO C. they fall under one of the exceptions stated in Implementing Regulations. ROBLES. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 272 .2. Inc. holiday pay. BASCO. VIRAY. ALEJANDRO A. VICTORIO Y. JACINTO GARCIANO. the respondents are entitled to the benefits they are claiming. 13th month pay. Labor Code. Were the respondents entitled to their claims? 2. the power of control by the petitioner is present. JORGE LEDESMA and CECILIO G. service incentive pay. seamstress. BELEN N. In addition to their piece-rate. CASIMIRO ZAPATA. as tailors. Except service incentive pay because as piece-rate workers being paid at a fixed amount for performing work irrespective of time consumed in the performance thereof. They are paid on a piece-rate basis.. and benefits provided for under Wage Orders Nos. Department of Labor and Employment. CEFERINA J. SANDIGAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SANDIGAN)-TUCP and its members. basteros and plantsadoras. MERILYN A. v National Labor Relations Commission GR No. DIMPAS.o To counter the claims the petitioner denies the presence of Employer-Employee Relationship. VISTA. deprived of their overtime pay.4 and 5.: 83380-81 Date: November 15.

They are seeking for backwages and other statutory benefits from the respondent.: 123938 Date: May 21. 1998 Petitioner: LABOR CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP) for and in behalf of its members. MARLENE MELQIADES. EMPIRE FOOD PRODUCTS. MR. GONZALO KEHYENG and MRS. although piece-rate workers. EVELYN KEHYENG Ponente: Davide Jr. they were paid a certain amount for every thousand pieces of cheese curls and other products repacked. the length of time that petitioners worked for the private respondent.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: Labor Congress of the Philippines v NLRC. IMELDA SARMIENTO. granting the petitioners’ claim. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 273 . and third. Issue: What are the statutory benefits granted to the petitioner as piece-rate employees? Held: The court declared that the petitioners are entitled to. Facts: The 99 petitioners in this case were rank-and-file employees of Empire Food Products. ANNABEL CARESO. LENITA VIRAY Respondent: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. first is that their task as repackers of food was necessary in the usual business of the private respondent. its Proprietor/President & Manager. They are paid on a piece-rate basis. working as repackers. ANA MARIE OCAMPO. Holiday Pay Premium Pay 13th Month Pay Service Incentive Leave The court laid down 3 factors that led them to rule. IRENE JACINTO. second the petitioners worked throughout the year. That they were regular employees. NANCY GARCIA. They filed complaints for money claims and violations of Labor Standards Laws. Empire Food Products et al. GR No. MARY INTAL.

Said respondents.000. that until March.86.309 which.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: Bernardo Jimenez v NLRC. Consequently.000. Private respondents further alleged that for the years 1988 and 1989 they received only a partial commission of P84. there was an unpaid balance to them of P106. in his trucking firm. Bernardo Jimenez. alleged that in December.261. 1990. as Operators of JJ's TRUCKING Respondent: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.000.00 for the said two years. 1996 Petitioner: BERNARDO JIMENEZ and JOSE JIMENEZ. they were hired by herein petitioner Bernardo Jimenez as driver/mechanic and helper.00. added up to a grand total of P114. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment. the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment.211. as complainants therein. herein private respondent Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 274 . They were assigned to a ten-wheeler truck to haul soft drinks of Coca-Cola Bottling Company and paid on commission basis. 1987. initially fixed at 17% but later increased to 20% in 1988. the employer has the burden to prove payment. filed a claim for unpaid wages/commissions. one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. and that petitioners' refusal to pay their aforestated commission was a ploy to unjustly terminate them. respectively. separation pay and damages against JJ's Trucking and/or Dr. Issue: Who has the burden of proof to ascertain payment of wages? Held: Where the employee alleges non-payment of wages.: 116960 Date: April 2. JJ Trucking. Pedro Juanatas GR No.000. Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment. they were further entitled to P15. excluding the partial payment of P7. As a general rule. with their commission for that period being computed at 20% of said income. 1990 when their services were illegally terminated.050. rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. PEDRO JUANATAS and JUANATAS Ponente: Regalado Facts: On June 29.86 due and payable to them. father and son.00 from petitioners' total gross income of almost P1.

to compel Far Bast Bank and Trust Company to recognize them as its regular employees and be paid the same wages which its employees receive. Nevertheless. the BCC is not engaged in Labor-only contracting. The court also stated to factors that will determine labor-only contracting first is the person supplying workers does not have substantial capital the second is the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of the employer.5 Million. they conclude. petitioners insist before us that BCC is engaged in "labor-only" contracting hence. 1993 Petitioner: VIRGINIA G. Thus the Labor Arbiter ruled that BCC was only job contracting and that consequently its employees were not employees of Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC. NERI and JOSE CABELIN Respondent: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY (FEBTC) and BUILDING CARE CORPORATION Ponente: Bellosillo Facts: Respondents are sued by two employees of Building Care Corporation. they are employees of respondent FEBTC. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 275 . Neri v NLRC. Issue: Was claim of the petitioner that BCC is engaged in Labor-only contracting? Held: The court is on the contrary. this factual finding was affirmed by respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC. Far East Bank & Trust Company and Building Care Corporation GR No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: Virginia G. On appeal. which provides janitorial and other specific services to various firms. in the proceedings. BCC cannot be considered a labor-only contractor because it has substantial capital.: 97008-09 Date: July 23. established that it had substantial capitalization of P1 Million or a stockholders equity of P1. for brevity). for brevity). Building Care Corporation (BCC. for brevity).

JORGE D. EDMUNDO B.. 2004 Petitioner: MANILA WATER COMPANY. IKE S. JR. MARTEJA. RIVERA Ponente: Ynares-Santiago Facts: When MWSS contracted with Manila Water Co. VICTOR C. Respondent: HERMINIO D. the MWC absorbed some MWSS employee. But 121 contractual collectors of MWSS were not absorbed but retained on contractual basis only. ESTEBAN B. the collectors filed a complaint of illegal dismissal against MWC which. A few months later these collectors formed the Association Collectors Group Inc. INC. argued that the employer was ACGI not MWC. DELFIN. the court concluded that ACGI was not an independent contractor. ACGI had no substantial capital and secondly. EDILBERTO C. Considering the facts. VICTA. When the contract was terminated after fourteen months. The court declared that it is a Labor-only contractor and the collectors have remained employees of MWC because the latter has not relinquished control over them. INTAL. and lastly ACGI did not carry on an independent business or undertake the performance of its service contract according to its own manner and method. free from MWC’s control supervision and MWC required the workers to report daily and their attendance was strictly checked by MWC. the work was directly related to the principal business or operation of MWC. CANONIGO. The court noted that. to manage the water distribution system in Metro Manila East Zone. vs Herminio D. Issue: Is Association Collectors Group Inc.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: Manila Waters Company Inc. BALDOZA. ALLAN D. a legitimate contractor? Held: No. first. (ACGI) which MWC contracted to collect water charges. MORADA. ZAFARALLA. REY T. QUEBRAL. PENA. MANLEGRO. PINGUL and FEDERICO M. AGNESIO D.: 158255 Date: July 8. MARLON B. ESPINA. Pena GR No. JOHN L. RIZALINO M. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 276 . EDUARDO ONG. for its part.

: 149011 Date: June 28. machineries. work premises and other materials to qualify it as an independent contractor. On appeal. the character of its business. 2005 Petitioner: San Miguel Corporation Respondent: Aballa et al. are employees of SMC Held: The test to determine the existence of independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of the employer.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: San Miguel Corporation v Aballa et al. SMC filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Notice of Closure due to serious business losses. After one year of rendering service. Ponente: Carpio-Morales Facts: Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and Sunflower Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Sunflower) entered into a one-year Contract of Service and such contract is renewed on a monthly basis until terminated. rendered services to SMC. by the mere expedient of a unilateral declaration in a contract. Other than that. In labor-only contracting.e. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 277 .. the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint and ruled in favor of SMC. the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose. The NLRC dismissed the appeal finding that Sunflower is an independent contractor. then appealed before the NLRC.in carrying out their tasks were owned and provided by SMC. The language of a contract is not. Hence. the Court of Appeals reversed NLRC·s decision on the ground that the agreement between SMC and Sunflower showed a clear intent to abstain from establishing an employer-employee relationship. it is gathered that the lot. A party cannot dictate. respondent Prospero Aballa et al.. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor. What appears is that Sunflower does not have substantial capitalization or investment in the form of tools. determinative of the parties· relationship. filed a complaint before National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) praying that they be declared as regular employees of SMC. however. Aballa et al.. rather it is the totality of the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case. On the other hand.e. Pursuant to this. equipment. In legitimate labor contracting. The Contract of Services between SMC and Sunflower shows that the parties clearly disavowed the existence of an employer-employee relationship between SMC and private respondents. it being crucial that its character be measured in terms of and determined by the criteria set by statute. machineries and all other working tools utilized by Aballa et al. the statute creates an employer-employee relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. GR No. i. The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the principal employer. except only as to the results of the work.to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. only for the payment of the employees· wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. i. Aballa et al. On the other hand. Issue: Whether or not Aballa et al. the principal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees. whether as labor-only contractor or job contractor. building.

As for janitorial and messengerial services. All the foregoing considerations affirm by more than substantial evidence the existence of an employer-employee relationship between SMC and Aballa et al. its apparent role having been merely to recruit persons to work for SMC. who were engaged in shrimp processing performed tasks usually necessary or desirable in the aquaculture business of SMC. they should be deemed regular employees of the latter and as such are entitled to all the benefits and rights appurtenant to regular employment. Since Aballa et al. free from the control and supervision of its principal. Sunflower did not carry on an independent business or undertake the performance of its service contract according to its own manner and method.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION And from the job description provided by SMC itself. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 278 . SMC. was directly related to the aquaculture operations of SMC. that they are considered directly related to the principal business of the employer has been jurisprudentially recognized. the work assigned to Aballa et al. Furthermore. They should thus be awarded differential pay corresponding to the difference between the wages and benefits given them and those accorded SMC’s other regular employees.

The contract period is described as being "from January 1976—. 5 thereof. employed not only by (CESI) but also by the bank. Both the bank and CESI maintained that CESI (and not the bank) was Opriada’s employer. as item No. HONORABLE ARBITER TEODORICO L. DOGELIO and RICARDO ORPIADA Ponente: Feliciano Facts: Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications and the Corporate Executive Search Inc. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 279 . He rendered messengerial services to the bank within its premise. " on a per person basis. or some contribution to. in the circumstances 'instances of this case. Issue: Whether or not an Employer-Employee relationship existed between the bank and private respondent Opriada. the petitioner bank is liable to Orpiada as if Orpiada had been directly. During the arbitration the Bank impleaded CESI as additional respondent. the amounts which the bank will have to pay to Orpiada. It may well be that the bank may in turn proceed against (CESI) to obtain reimbursement of. the bank requested CESI to withdraw Opriada’s assignment because his service “were no longer needed.” He filed a complaint against the bank for illegal dismissal and failure to pay the 13th month pay.: L-66598 Date: December 19. and that consequently." The petitioner in truth undertook to pay a "daily service rate of P18. the name of private respondent Ricardo Orpiada. but this it is not necessary to determine here. Attached to the letter agreement was a "List of Messengers assigned at Philippine Bank of Communications" which list included. Held: The Court held that.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: Philippine Banks of Communication v NLRC GR No. In or about October 1976. 1986 Petitioner: PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS Respondent: THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. (CESI) was engaged in "laboronly" or attracting vis-a-vis the petitioner and in respect c Ricardo Orpiada. together with others doing similar job. (CESI) entered into a letter agreement dated January 1976 under which (CESI) undertook to provide "Tempo[rary] Services" to petitioner Consisting of the "temporary services" of eleven (11) messengers.

" an activity that is doubtless. an integral part of the manufacturing business. LILY-VICTORIA A. it contracts out labor in favor of clients. rendered a piece of work it (California) could not have itself done. EMERSON C. ESPINO. In this connection. MIGUELITA QUIAMBOA. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. JOEL MADRIAGA. ROBERTO P. ERISPE. FERDINAND CRUZ. The bare fact that Livi maintains a separate line of business does not extinguish the equal fact that it has provided California with workers to pursue the latter's own business. as if Livi had served as its (California's) promotions or sales arm or agent." The agreement provides that: California "has no control or supervisions whatsoever over Livi's workers with respect to how they accomplish their work or perform Californias obligation" It was further expressly stipulated that the assignment of workers to California shall be on a "seasonal and contractual basis". assuming one exists. We hold that it is one notwithstanding its vehement claims to the contrary. meaning to say. ISLES. or otherwise.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: Tabas et al vs California Manufacturing Company GR No. RAMON M.. AMARO BONA. Neither Livi nor California can therefore escape liability. BELITA. we do not agree that the petitioners had been made to perform activities 'which are not directly related to the general business of manufacturing. an independent contractor. The respondent company then denied the existence of an employeremployee relationship between the company and the petitioners. 1989 Petitioner: DANILO B. had simply supplied it with the manpower necessary to carry out its (California's) merchandising activities. and HON. NOMER MATAGA. FEDERICO A. PETER TIANSING. TABAS. that is. BRIONES. it appears that the petitioners prior their involvement with California Manufacturing Company were employees of Livi Manpower service. AZARCON. which assigned them to work as "promotional merchandisers. INC. Petition granted ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 280 . Pursuant to a manpower supply agreement. using its (California's) premises and equipment." The nature of one's business is not determined by self-serving appellations one attaches thereto but by the tests provided by statute and prevailing case law. EDUARDO BONDOC. EDUARDO R. ARTHUR M. EDUARDO UDOG. It is not." California's purported "principal operation activity. Livi performs "manpower services". and notwithstanding the provision of the contract that it is "an independent contractor. Livi." Issue: Whether the petitioners are California's or Livi's employees? Held: There is no doubt that in the case at bar. TUMANON Ponente: Sarmiento Facts: Petitioners filed a petition in the NLRC for reinstatement and payment of various benefits against California Manufacturing Company. that “cost of living allowance and the 10 legal holidays will be charged directly to California at cost ". then. VIOLY ESTEBAN and LYDIA ORTEGA Respondent: CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY.: L-80680 Date: January 26. " The petitioner's had been charged with "merchandizing promotion or sale of the products of [California] in the different sales outlets in Metro Manila including task and occasional price tagging. ELMER ARMADA. and that "payroll for the preceeding week [shall] be delivered by Livi at California's premises. as a placement agency.

BLAS F. a firm based at Malabon.: L-37790 Date: March 25. charging the general manager of Mafinco for illegally dismissing them. Rizal. It stressed that there was termination of the contract not a dismissal of an employee.Rodrigo Repomanta and Mafinco executed a peddling contract whereby Repomanta agreed to buy and sell Cosmos soft drinks. The NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION RODRIGO REPOMANTA and REY MORALDE Ponente: Aquino Facts: Cosmos Aerated Water Factory. Mafinco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the NLRC had no jurisdiction because Repomanta and Moralde were not its employees but were independent contractors. OPLE. shall be responsible for damages caused to third persons. Issue: Whether or not there exist an employer-employee relationship between petitioner Mafinco and private respondents Repomanta and Moralde. appointed petitionerMafinco as its sole distributor of Cosmos soft drinks in Manila. shall post a bond to protect the manufacturer against losses. A contract whereby one engages to purchase and sell soft drinks on trucks supplied by the manufacturer but providing that the other party (peddler) shall have the right to employ his own workers. filed a compliant with the NLRC. Repomanta and Moralde werenot employees of Mafinco but were independent contractors as found by the NLC and its fact finder and by the committee appointed by the Secretary of Labor to look into the status of Cosmos and Mafinco peddlers. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 281 . Held: The Supreme Court held that under the peddling contracts. Rey Moralde entered into a similar contract.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Case Title: Mafinco Trading Corp. Months later. in his capacity as Secretary of Labor. Repomanta and Moralde. Mafinco terminated the peddling contract with Repomanta and Moralde. Consequently. vs Ople GR No. through their union. shall obtain the necessary licenses and permits and bear the expenses incurred in the sale of the soft drinks is not a contract of employment. 1976 Petitioner: MAFINCO TRADING CORPORATION Respondent: THE HON.

Issue: Whether or not Basiao had become the company’s employee by virtue of the contract. hence cannot justifiable be said to establish an employer-employee relationship between Basiao and the company. Rules and regulations governing the conduct of the business are provided for in the Insurance Code. Basiao sued the company in a civil action. The company terminated the Agency Manager’s Contract. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 282 .: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: INSULAR LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. He would also received compensation. Thus.the company terminated Basiao’s engagement under the first contract and stopped payment of his commissions. After 4 years. the complain of Basiao is dismissed. thereby creating no employer-employee relationship. but a commission agent. The respondents limit themselves to pointing out that Basiao’s contract with the company bound him toobserve and conform to such rules.. It is usual and expected for an insurance company to promulgate a set of rules to guide its commission agents in selling its policies which prescribe the qualifications of persons who may be insured. Basiao organized an agency while concurrently fulfilling his commitment under the first contract.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Case Title: GR No. an independent contractwhose claim for unpaid commissions should have been litigated in an ordinary civil action. V NLRC 84484 November 15.. the parties entered into another contract – an Agency Manager’s Contract – and to implement this end of it. thereby placing his claim for unpaid commissions Held: No. duties of the agent and the acts prohibited tohim including the modes of termination. The contract also contained the relations of the parties. None of these really invades the agent’s contractual prerogative to adopt his own selling methods or to sell insurance at his own time and convenience. Basiao was not an employee of the petitioner. LTD. 1989 INSULAR LIFE INSURANCE CO. Therefore.Wherefore. Its aim is only to promote the result. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MELECIO BASIAO Narvasa Facts: Insular Life (company) and Basiao entered into a contract by which Basiao was authorized to solicit for insurance in accordance with the rules of the company. in the form of commissions. These rules merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it. No showing that such rules were in fact promulgated which effectivelycontrolled or restricted his choice of methods of selling insurance.

the petitioner started screening proposals by prospective service contractors. 1988 to the seven remaining janitors assigned to the Namayan plant. Thus. Jr.On April 1.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marc Aerone Paul P. Like Roman. On January 1. VS. passed the bidding committee's standards and obtained the janitorial services contract. 1993 Petitioner: RHONE-POULENC AGROCHEMICALS PHILIPPINES. CSI thereafter issued a memorandum dated March 20. of all its agricultural-chemical divisions worldwide in favor of Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemie. the janitors refused to acknowledge receipt of the recall memorandum. the Marilag Business and Industrial Services. payment of 13thmonth salary. Inc. In 1987. Union Carbide formally notified CSI of the termination of their janitorial service agreement. France of Union Carbides Inc. ORAIN. including respondent Urcisio Orain. prior to the sale. Meanwhile. 1988. Respondent: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. as a consequence of the sale by Union Carbide.9. and PAULINO G. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 283 . Union Carbide instructed CSI to reduce thenumber of janitors working at the plant from eight (8) to seven (7). distribution and sale in the local market of its agro-chemical products. production. 1988. 1988 pull-out by Union Carbide.'s agro-chemical business. one of the janitors. However. the petitioner acquired from Union Carbide Philippines Far East. Inc. RhonePoulenc likewise invited CSI to submit to its Bidding Committee a cost quotation of its janitorial services. Facts: The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of agro-chemicals. Private respondent Paulino Roman. Agrochemie. Imperio 2011-0147 Case Title: RHONE-POULENC AGROCHEMICALS PHILIPPINES.: 102633-35 Date: JANUARY 19. Union Carbide had entered into a contract with CSI for the latter's supply of janitorial services. INC. the latter's agro-chemical formulation plant in Namayan. INC. citing as reason the global buy-out by Rhone-Poulenc. Roman refused to acknowledge receipt of the recall memorandum. On March 9. Inc. ROMAN Ponente: Gutierrez. Rhone-Poulenc and CSI. another contractor. service leave and overtime pay against Union Carbide. NLRC GR No. These janitors then filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal. 1988. recalling and advising them to report to the CSI office for reassignment. effective April 1. petitioner Rhone-Poulenc found itself sharing the Namayan plant with Union Carbide while the factory was being serviced and maintained by janitors supplied by CSI. in anticipation of the March 31. Mandaluyong. was recalled by CSI onFebruary 15. 1988. However. Its business operations involve the formulation. Metro Manila. France. URCISIO A. During the transition period. Union Carbide continued to avail itself of CSI's janitorial services. the eight janitors reported for work at the Namayan plant but were refused admission and were told that another group of janitors had replaced them. l988 for reassignment. the petitioner's mother corporation. Midway through the transition period.

thus making Union Carbide a direct employer of these janitors. Whether or not the janitors were employees of Union Carbide Whether or not the CSI is a labor only contractor Whether or not petitioner absorbed the janitors in its workforce Held: The court held that the petition is meritorious. In determining the existence of employer-employee relationship. 3. any of its janitors working at Union Carbide. who gave orders and instructions to CSI janitors assigned to the Namayan plant.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Issue/s: 1 2. An innocent transferee of a business establishment has no liability to the employees of the transferor to continue employing them. CSI exercised control over these janitors through Richard Barroga. (3) the power of dismissal. CSI likewise acknowledged that the two janitors were its employees. CSI had the power to assign its janitors to various clients and to pull out as it had done in a number of occasions. As to whether CSI is engaged in labor-only contracting or in job contracting. and (4) the power to control the employee's conduct — although the latter is the most important element. namely: (1) the selection and engagement of employees (2) the payment of wages. Without regard to the third issue. also a CSI employee. even if the janitors were. There is no employer-employee relationship between Union Carbide and the respondent janitors. employees of Union Carbide or that CSI is a labor-only contractor. applying the test prescribed by the Labor Code and the implementing rules. as purchaser of Union Carbide's business is not compelled to absorb these janitors into its workforce. petitioner Rhone-Poulenc. the following elements are generally considered. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 284 . The janitors drew their salaries from CSI and not from Union Carbide. indeed. the court finds sufficient basis from the records to conclude that CSI is engaged in job contracting. The respondents themselves admitted that they were selected and hired by CSI and were assigned to Union Carbide. Moreover.

(2) where the employee is about to enter or about to leave the premises of his employer by way of the exclusive or customary means of ingress and egress. the Commission erred (1) in holding that Pablo's death occurred in the course of employment and in presuming that it arose out of the employment. or coming from his place of work is excluded from the benefits of workmen's compensation acts. EDGAR and EDNA. or during his employment.: L-26341 Date: November 27. with some duty or special errand connected with his employment. there were four "carinderias" on the left side of the road and two "carinderias" and a residential house on the right side. Held: The general rule in workmen's compensation law known as the "going & coming rule. was shot to death in front of. PABLO. while walking on his way home. on a private road commonly called the IDECO road. and was going home. to wit: (1) where the employee is proceeding to or from his work on the premises of his employer. and about 20 meters away from. all surnamed PABLO Ponente: Castro Facts: At about 5:02 o'clock in the afternoon of January 29. 1968 Petitioner: ILOILO DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. We address ourselves particularly to an examination and consideration of the second exception. an employee injured in. Pablo's companion was Rodolfo Galopez. v WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION GR No. provides the means of transportation to and from the place of employment.. This rule. for herself and in behalf of her minor children EDWIN. The slayer. while on his way to or from his place of employment or at his home. had finished overtime work at 5:00 p. Issue: Whether the injuries are "in the course of" and not "out of" the employment. going to. however." and (3) in holding that Pablo's death was an accident within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Marc Aerone Paul P. Imperio 2011-0147 Case Title: ILOILO DOCK & ENGINEERING CO. is that "in the absence of special circumstances. (3) where the employee is charged. Respondent: WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and IRENEA M.. the main IDECO gate.m. as an incident of the employment. who was employed as a mechanic of the IDECO. like Pablo." simply stated. but while using a customary means ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 285 . At the time of the killing. According to the IDECO. injuries sustained off the premises of the employer. The motive for the crime was and still is unknown as Cordero was himself killed before he could be tried for Pablo's death. admits of four well-recognized exceptions. and (4) where the employer. From the main IDECO gate to the spot where Pablo was killed. who.. Martin Cordero. The entire length of the road is nowhere stated in the record. another employee. was not heard to say anything before or after the killing. (2) in applying the "proximity rule.e. 1960. i. Pablo.

are compensable (1) if the employee is on the way to or from work in a vehicle owned or supplied by the employer. These states find something sacred about the employment premises and define "premises" very broadly.g. hired.. (5) if the employee is on his way to do further work at home. but also premises leased. trespassing on railroad tracks adjacent to his employer's brick-making premises (but shown by his superintendent the specific short crossing over the track). not only to include premises owned by the employer. The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that it will not overturn any state decision that so enlarges the scope of its act. a deaf worker. travelling workers.in both liberal and narrow states.. the employer's street car) or private conveyance. Off-premises injuries to or from work . So long as causal relation to the employment is discernible.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION of ingress and egress. was held to be in the course of his employment when hit by an oncoming train fifteen minutes before his day would have begun. whether in a public (e.e. Other exceptions undoubtedly are equally justified. whether he arrives early or late. Where a city or any employer owns or controls an island. supplied or used by him. all its streets are protected premises. Adjacent private premises are protected by many states. (4) if the employer pays for the employee's time from the moment he leaves his home to his return home. Most of the states will protect the employee from the moment his foot or person reaches the employer's premises. even though on a fixed salary. and killed by a train. even private alleyways merely used by the employer. Hence. i. and a few protect the employee even on adjacent public sidewalks and streets. no federalquestion arises. Some of our states refuse to extend this definition of "in the course of" to include these injuries. (6) where the employee is required to bring his automobile to his place of business for use there. (2) if the employee is subject to call at all hours or at the moment of injury. dependent on their own peculiar circumstances ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 286 . (3) if the employee is travelling for the employer. There is no reason in principle why states should not protect employees for a reasonable period of time prior to or after working hours and for a reasonable distance before reaching or after leaving the employer's premises. The narrow rule that a worker is not in the course of his employment until he crosses the employment threshold is itself subject to many exceptions.

The claim was. L-48594 March 16.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. she was bumped and run over by a speeding Toyota mini-bus which resulted in her instantaneous death. 1976. As to the Government Service Insurance System's manifestation. Pangasinan. ECC G. Generoso C.m. (97 SCRA 782) up to Cabanero v. Alano." ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 287 . a government employee during her lifetime. (Rollo. but the same was denied and the records of the case were elevated to this Commission for review. we hold that it is not fatal to this case that it was not impleaded as a party respondent. No. denied on the same date on the ground that the "injury upon which compensation is being claimed is not an employment accident satisfying all the conditions prescribed by law. to 5:30 p. this Court has ruled that the Government Service Insurance System is a proper party in employees' compensation cases as the ultimate implementing agency of the Employees' Compensation Commission. Her tour of duty was from 7:30 a. Ines H. She was there because her employment required her to be there. Clemente v.M." On July 19. brother of the deceased. On June 27. while she was waiting for a ride at Plaza Jaycee in San Carlos City on her way to the school. Employees' Compensation Commission. Held: In this case. August 31. her job necessarily required her to be if she was to reach her place of work on time. 1977. Employees' Compensation Commission (111 SCRA 413) and recently. worked as principal of Salinap Community School in San Carlos City. 2011 – 0151 ALANO VS. it is not disputed that the deceased died while going to her place of work. 1977 appellant requested for a reconsideration of the system's decision. We held in the aforecited cases that "the law and the rules refer to the said System in all aspects of employee compensation including enforcement of decisions (Article 182 of Implementing Rules). at 7:00 A. 1988 Petitioner: GENEROSO Respondent: EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION Ponente: J. filed the instant claim for income benefit with the GSIS for and in behalf of the decedent's children. On November 29.m. JR. ALANO Facts: Dedicacion de Vera. No.. She is survived by her four sons and a daughter. p. 12) Issue: Whether or not the death of Dedicacion de Vera can be compensable. She was at the place where.1987). as the petitioner puts it. GUTTIERREZ. however.R.R. There was nothing private or personal about the school principal's being at the place of the accident. As early as the case of La O v. Government Service Insurance System (G. L-47521.

ANTONIO MIJARES. No documents were submitted to prove that the company exercised control over them. TIMOTEO NOTARION. VS. CAYETANO IBASCO. REYNANTE PEJO. CAROLINO M. JOSEPH REYES. MAGTIBAY. DODJIE TAJONERA. FERNANDO M. GARY RELOS. MENDOZA. They claim that they were under the control and supervision of the company. MAURLIE C. 124055 June 8. RENATO JANER. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 288 . ANDREW ESPINOSA. fix the prices. The agent also pays the petitioners. ESCARIO. MAURING MANUEL. ALEJANDRO ORTIZ. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are employees of the company. DANTE ESTRELLADO. MALLILLIN. VIBAR. Held: The Court ruled that there is no employer-employee relationship and that petitioners are employees of the agent. The company denied any employer-employee relationship. ALEJANDRO MABAWAD. ALBERT BALAO. GUTTIERREZ. NORMAN VALLO. LEOPOLDO OLEGARIO. RONALD ESGUERA. VICTOR ALVAREZ. NESTOR ANDRES. The NLRC set aside the decision and said that there was no such relationship. RODOLFO VALENTIN. RONALDO BACOLOR. EDGAR CABARDO. BOLONIA. MELCHOR BUELA. NELSON BERUELA. MIGUEL TUAZON. The agent was a legitimate independent contractor. FABIAN. RAMON ORTIZ. DANTE IRANZO. JOSELITO ODO. ROMEO E. ALBERT CANLAS. CAMILO VELASCO. ROSANO VALLO. MARIO DIZER. free from the control of the principal and the contractor has substantial capital or investment. LEONILO MEDINA. NOEL B. MELQUIADES ANGELES. CESAR AMPER. JOSELITO TIONLOC. NESTOR DELA CRUZ. The agent hired the petitioners. By petitioning for regularization.R. GOMER GOMEZ. JR.AL. ARNEL UMALI. 2000 Petitioners: ROLANDO E. EDGARDO FRANCISCO. the petitioners concede that they are not regular employees. FERNANDO VILLARUEL. no evidence was submitted showing that it was the company paying them and not the agent. JR. The labor-only contractor doesn’t have substantial capital or investment and the workers recruited perform activities directly related to the principal business of the employer. REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. WELFREDO RAMOS. Labor-only contractor occurs only when the contractor merely recruits. displaying the products and inventory. They withdraw stocks from the warehouse . EDUARDO BOLONIA. NLRC G. and not the company. ROBERTO SANTOS. also exercises control over the petitioners. 2011 – 0151 ESCARIO ET. They asked for regularization of their status. NOEL STO. JESSIE SEVILLA. RAZ GARIZALDE. No. JOSE MARCELO. ELIZALDE ESTASIO. They were then given notice of their termination. ROLANDO ZALDUA.. GREGORIO TALABONG. PONTINO CHRISTOPHER. AUGUSTO RAMOS. DOMINGO. FIDELES REYES. VERNON VELASQUEZ. supplies or places workers to perform a job for a principal. MARCIANO VERGARA. JOEL CATAPANG. ANICETO CADESIM. EDUARDO DUNGO ESCARIO REY. The Labor Arbiter ruled that there was an employeremployee relationship. There is permissible contracting only when the contractor carries an independent business and undertakes the contract in his own manner and method. The agent is a legitimate independent contractor. VIRGILIO A. FREDERICK RAMOS. MANILA. The agent. JR. It was also the agent who terminated their services. LORETO BALDEMOR. ARMANDO IBASCO. JR. price-tagging.. TEODORO LUGADA.. They were paid by the company through an agent to avoid liability. They claim that they used an agent or independent contractors to sell the merchandise. Facts: Petitioners are merchandisers of respondent company. DOMINADOR B. ROMEO M. MANIO. Ines H. OSCAR SORIANO. RODOLFO TUAZON. LIQUIGAN. ARNALDO RAFAEL. ANTONIO CACAM. AND RICARDO MORTEL Respondent: EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION Ponente: J. HENRY PONCE. EMER B.

1985. 1989 Petitioner: RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1985 awarding to URCPICLAFUR and FUR 15% of the total backpay of RCPI employees as their union service fees. The application was opposed by respondent United RCPI Communications Labor Association (URCPICLA-FUR).60 to private respondent URCPICLA-FUR and consequently ordered the garnishment of petitioner's bank account to enforce said claim. Thereupon. before the aforesaid case was elevated to this Court. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 289 . 1981. the parties filed a joint motion praying for the dismissal of the decision of the National Wages Council for it had already been novated by the Compromise Agreement re-defining the rights and obligations of the parties. the National Wages Council disapproved said application and ordered petitioner to pay its covered employees the mandatory living allowance of P2. filed with the National Wages Council an application for exemption from the coverage of Wage Order No. 1985. petitioner entered into a compromise agreement with Buklod ng Manggagawa sa RCPI-NFL (BMRCPI-NFL) as the new bargaining agent of oppositors RCPI employees. 1981. INC. without deducting the union service fee of 15%. petitioner paid in full the covered employees on November 29. REGALADO Facts: On May 4. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and UNITED RCPI COMMUNICATIONS LABOR ASSOCIATION (URCPICLA)FUR Ponente: J.00 daily effective March 22. Secretary of Labor and Employment issued an order on August 18. 1985.R. VS.. INC. 77959 January 9. Respondent Union on November 7. 1985. claimed that the Compromise Agreement is irregular and invalid. without the knowledge and consent of respondent union. Despite said order. 1. and directing RCPI to deposit said amount with the cashier of the Regional Office for proper disposition to said awardees. Director Severo M. apart from the fact that there was nothing to compromise in the face of a final and executory decision. No. petitioner.845. As early as March 13. On May 22. therefore. respondent union filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. On October 24. In an order dated May 7. Respondent Union. 1986 modifying the order appealed from by holding petitioner solely liable to respondent union for 10% of the awarded amounts as attorney's fees. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION. 1981. 1986. NCR officer-in-charge found petitioner RCPI and its employees jointly and severally liable for the payment of the 15% union service fee amounting to P427. Issue: Whether or not public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding the petitioner solely liable for "union service fee” to respondent URCPICLA-FUR.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. asserting therein its claim to 15% of the total backpay due to all its members as "union service fee" for having successfully prosecuted the latter's claim for payment of wages and for reimbursement of expenses incurred by FUR and prayed for the segregation and remittance of said amount to FUR thru its National President. a labor organization affiliated with the Federation of Unions of Rizal (FUR). Ines H. SECRETARY OF LABOR G. Pucan issued an Order dated November 25. countered by opposing the motion and alleging that one of the signatories thereof BMRCPI-NFL is not a party in interest in the case but that it was respondent Union which represented oppositors RCPI employees all the way from the level of the National Wages Council up the Supreme Court. a domestic corporation engaged in the telecommunications business. Respondents: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. 2011 – 0151 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS.

therefore. Finally. while the balance of 70% would still be the subject of renegotiation by the parties. the lack thereof was remedied and supplied by the execution of the compromise agreement whereby the employees. As is evident in the compromise agreement. petitioner was bound to pay only 30% of the amount due each employee on November 30. Capocyan the 10% fee that properly pertained to herein private respondent. ECC) It is undisputed that oppositor (private respondent herein) was the counsel on record of the RCPI employees in their claim for EC0LA under Wage Order No. it no longer had any legal basis or subterfuge for refusing to pay the latter. Also. ignoring the service fee due the private respondent. However. for all intents and purposes. despite such conditions beneficial to it. expressly approved the 10% deduction and held petitioner RCPI free from any claim. a valid claim for attorney's fee which it called union service fee. Be that as it may. It had. 1985. petitioner cannot invoke the lack of an individual written authorization from the employees as a shield for its fraudulent refusal to pay the service fee of private respondent. the deductions for the union service fee in question are authorized by law and do not require individual check-off authorizations. petitioner paid in full the backpay of its employees on November 29. When petitioner was thereafter again ordered to pay the 10% fees to respondent union. We agree that the Labor Code in requiring an individual written authorization as a prerequisite to wage deductions seeks to protect the employee against unwarranted practices that would diminish his compensation without his knowledge and consent. The defaulting employer or government agency remains liable for attorney's fees because it compelled the complainant to employ the services of counsel by unjustly refusing to recognize the validity of the claim. Worse. the deductions required of the petitioner and the employees do not run counter to the express mandate of the law since the same are not unwarranted or without their knowledge and consent. Attorney's fee due the oppositor is chargeable against RCPI. suit or complaint arising from the deduction thereof. Yet. petitioner supposedly paid to one Atty. (Cristobal vs. an unjustified and baffling diversion of funds. Rodolfo M. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 290 . 1985. 1 since the inception of the proceedings at the National Wages Council up to the Supreme Court.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: No.

00 per share or a total of P150.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. the alleged obligation is not enforceable. JOSE M. the NLRC has no jurisdiction to determine such intra-corporate dispute between the stockholder and the corporation as in the matter of unpaid subscriptions. In a decision dated April 28. What the records show is that the respondent corporation deducted the amount due to petitioner from the amount receivable from him for the unpaid subscriptions. 1985. Petitioner questioned the set-off alleging that there was no call or notice for the payment of the unpaid subscription and that. 80039 April 18.07 on the ground that the employer has no right to withhold payment of wages already earned under Article 103 of the Labor Code. Issue: Does the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) have jurisdiction to resolve a claim for non-payment of stock subscriptions to a corporation? Assuming that it has. can an obligation arising therefrom be offset against a money claim of an employee against the employer? Held: First. GANCAYCO APODACA and Facts: Petitioner was employed in respondent corporation.439. he resigned. morals and public policy. Second. assuming arguendo that the NLRC may exercise jurisdiction over the said subject matter under the circumstances of this case. Ines H.00. his cost of living allowance. on January 2. The NLRC held that a stockholder who fails to pay his unpaid subscription on call becomes a debtor of the corporation and that the set-off of said obligation against the wages and others due to petitioner is not contrary to law.R. On August 28. NLRC G. the labor arbiter sustained the claim of petitioner for P17. 1986. petitioner instituted with the NLRC a complaint against private respondents for the payment of his unpaid wages. 1987. petitioner was appointed President and General Manager of the respondent corporation. Private respondents admitted that there is due to petitioner the amount of P17. This controversy is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Article 113 of the Labor ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 291 . INC. MIRASOL INTRANS PHILS. Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. On December 19. 1989 Petitioner: ERNESTO M. No. It does not even appear that a notice of such call has been sent to petitioner by the respondent corporation. Lastly.060. assuming further that there was a call for payment of the unpaid subscription. Mirasol persuaded petitioner to subscribe to 1. the decision of the labor arbiter was reversed in a decision dated September 18. the unpaid subscriptions are not due and payable until a call is made by the corporation for payment.00. Private respondents have not presented a resolution of the board of directors of respondent corporation calling for the payment of the unpaid subscriptions. 1986. respondent Jose M. 1975. Ponente: J.060. the NLRC cannot validly set it off against the wages and other benefits due the petitioner. accordingly. However. the balance of his gasoline and representation expenses and his bonus compensation for 1986.500 shares of respondent corporation at P100. if not premature.. He made an initial payment of P37. Petitioner and private respondents submitted their position papers to the labor arbiter.07 but this was applied to the unpaid balance of his subscription in the amount of P95. On September 1. 1987.500. the same is not yet due and payable. As there was no notice or call for the payment of unpaid subscriptions.93. 2011 – 0151 APODACA VS. Upon the appeal of the private respondents to public respondent NLRC.000. No doubt such set-off was without lawful basis.

060. 1986. in cases where the right of the worker or his union to checkoff has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned. — No employer. to wit: ART. in his own behalf or in behalf of any person. An obligation arising from non-payment of stock subscriptions to a corporation cannot be offset against a money claim of an EE against an ER. and (c) In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Code allows such a deduction from the wages of the employees by the employer.07 plus legal interest computed from the time of the filing of the complaint on December 19. shall make any deduction from the wages of his employees. Wage Deduction. 113. except: (a) In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer. and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance. (b) For union dues. with costs against private respondents. The petition is GRANTED and the questioned decision of the NLRC dated September 18. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 292 . only in three instances. 1987 is set aside and another judgment is rendered ordering private respondents to pay petitioner the amount of P17.

Those receiving more were not covered by the implementation of the new law but only the increase as agreed upon in the CBA. 102636 September 10. 2011 – 0151 METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY EMPLOYEES VS. Wage Distortion means a situation where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contradiction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills. 1993 Petitioners: METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION-ALUand ANTONIO V. Metrobank classified employees into those receiving less than 100 per day and those receiving more. length of service. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 293 .R. No. Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (2nd Division) and METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY Ponente: J. Subsequently.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. Ines H. or other logical bases of differentiation. VITUG TUCP BALINANG Facts: Metrobank entered into a CBA with Petitioner. Issue: Whether or not there was wage distortion? Held: There was wage distortion. a law was passed increasing the minimum wage. granting a P900 increase in wages. Petitioners argue that the method of implementation created a wage distortion within the employees of Metrobank because the differences in the salaries of the employee classifications were substantially reduced. NLRC G.

however. On motion for partial reconsideration filed by the Company. FELICIANO Facts: Between 1 November 1983 and 1 November 1984. the Union and the Company reached an agreement with respect to the lock-out issue. is not a legal basis for ignoring it. The Company directed some 205 workers to explain the reduction in their work output. The NLRC En Banc was in serious error when it disregarded the differential of P3.60 which had been restored by 1 July 1985 upon the ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 294 .00 per day to all regular workers effective June 16. 103586 July 21.R. Issue: Whether a wage distortion occured due to the implementation of Wage Orders? Held: We believe and so hold that the re-establishment of a significant gap or differential between regular employees and casual employees by operation of the CBA was more than substantial compliance with the requirements of the several Wage Orders (and of Article 124 of the Labor Code). Ines H." The rest of the decision of 11 November 1987 was left untouched. the distortion persisted only for a total of fifteen (15) days and accordingly required private respondent company to pay "a wage increase of P2. Wage Orders Nos. rather than of a special grievance procedure. 1984 or a total of fifteen (15) days. there was no more significant differential between regular and non-regular/newly regularized employees. 1984 up to June 30. 2011 – 0151 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR VS. the Company experienced a work output slow down. the NLRC En Banc rendered a decision which in effect found the existence of wage distortion and required the Company to pay a P1.00 wage increase effective 1 May 1984. the Company. This left unresolved only the wage distortion issue. refused to take back the 205 dismissed employees. the Company suspended operations on 16 August 1984. On 11 November 1987. As a result of the implementation of such wage orders and the increases brought about by the effectivity of the CBA. That this reestablishment of a significant differential was the result of collective bargaining negotiations. As a response to its decreasing productivity levels. Petitioner Union then went on strike alleging a lock-out on the part of the Company and demanding rectification of the wage distortion. granted the 205 employees "financial assistance" equivalent to thirty (30) days' separation pay. the above quoted portion of the NLRC En Banc's decision was reconsidered and set aside by the NLRC Fifth Division. 4. NLRC G. Operations were resumed on 14 September 1984. 3. On 19 June 1985. The agreement. The workers failed to comply and they were accordingly issued notices of dismissal by the Company.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. Meantime. 1994 Petitioner: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES (DAVAO PLANT) Ponente: J. 5 and 6 were promulgated increasing the statutory minimum wages of workers with differing increases being specified for agricultural plantation and non-agricultural workers. The case was certified by the Secretary of Labor to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory conciliation. No. The Fifth Division of the NLRC in effect found that while a wage distortion did exist commencing 16 June 1984. which was approved by the NLRC En Banc. while the above wage developments were unfolding.

The wage distortion anticipated in Wage Orders Nos. The Wage Orders referred to above had provided for the crediting of increases in wages or allowances granted or paid by employers within a specified time against the statutorily prescribed increases in minimum wages. provided some elaboration of the notion of wage distortion: As used herein. or other logical bases of differentiation. 5 and 6 was a "distortion" (or "compression") which ensued from the impact of those Wage Orders upon the different wage rates of the several classes of employees. it will be seen that the concept of wage distortion assumes an existing grouping or classification of employees which establishes distinctions among such employees on some relevant or legitimate basis. This classification is reflected in a differing wage rate for each of the existing classes of employees. distortion ensued where the result of implementation of one or another of the several Wage Orders was the total elimination or the severe reduction of the differential or gap existing between the wage rates of the differing classes of employees. length of service.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ground that such differential represented negotiated wage increases which should not be considered covered and in compliance with the Wage Orders. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 295 . a wage distortion shall mean a situation where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills. Thus. NLRC in its Resolution dated 11 November 1987. 4. The Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. From the above quoted material. In relation. 3.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 296 . NLRC G. Ines H. or other logical bases of differentiation. and the MANILA MANDARIN HOTEL Ponente: C. the Manila Mandarin Employees Union.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. as exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the Manila Mandarin Hotel. A review of the records convinces this Court that respondent NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in holding that no wage distortion was demonstrated by the UNION. Inc. No. 108556 November 19. J. 1987.R. it filed an Amended Complaint presenting an additional claim for payment of salary differentials to the union members affected. the UNION filed its Position Paper amplifying the allegations of its complaint and setting forth the legal bases of its demands against MANDARIN. Second Division. Held: There was no wage distortion that existed. allegedly resulting from underpayment of wages. The Labor Arbiter eventually ruled in favor of the UNION. 1987. and on March 25. and the failure of MANDARIN to implement the corresponding increases in the basic salary rate of newly-hired employees. Wage distortion is a situation where an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills. NARVASA Issue: On October 30. 1986. On January 15. Issue: Whether or not wage distortion exists. Hence. filed with the NLRC Arbitration Branch a complaint in its members' behalf to compel MANDARIN to pay the salary differentials of the individual employees concerned because of wage distortions in their salary structure allegedly created by the upward revisions of the minimum wage pursuant to various Presidential Decrees and Wage Orders. however it was later reversed by the Commission. this petition. The relevant Presidential Decrees and Wage Orders were invoked during the said trial.. 1996 Petitioner: MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. length of service. 2011 – 0151 MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION VS.

AL. 1997. 1998 Petitioner: CAGAYAN SUGAR MILLING COMPANY Respondents: SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. On March 4.41. On July 16. RO2-02-A. 1997. On March 10. 2011 – 0151 CAGAYAN SUGAR MILLING CO. and. upon petitioner's motion. ET. G. SR. On January 6. Sr. ruled that petitioner violated Wage Order RO2-02 by failing to implement an across the board increase in the salary of its employees. 1997. VS. amending the earlier wage order.133. PUNO Facts: On September 12 and 13. 1994. Martinez. labor inspectors from the DOLE Regional Office examined the books of petitioner to determine its compliance with the wage order. Sr. private respondent CARSUMCO EMPLOYEES UNION moved for execution of the December 16. 123. On April 3.. On the same date. the TRO was amended by also enjoining respondents from enforcing the Decision of the Secretary of Labor and conducting further proceedings until further orders from this Court. On October 8. Ines H. On February 12. 1994 Order. SECRETARY OF LABOR. Quisumbing. During the hearing at the DOLE Regional Office for the alleged violation. Held: Art. the Secretary of Labor dismissed petitioner's appeal and affirmed the Order of Regional Director Martinez. RO2-02-A ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 297 . He ordered petitioner to pay the deficiency in the salary of its employees in the total amount of P555. based on the standards and criteria herein prescribed. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. DIRECTOR RICARDO S. Wage Order. In fact. Issue: Wage Order RO2-02 is null and void for having been issued in violation of the procedure provided by law and in violation of petitioner's right to due process of law. The record shows that there was no prior public consultation or hearings and newspaper publication insofar as Wage Order No.R. MARTINEZ. public respondent Regional Director Ricardo S. these allegations were not denied by public respondents in their Comment. 1994.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. Public respondents' position is that there was no need to comply with the legal requirements of consultation and newspaper publication as Wage order No. petitioner moved for reconsideration to set aside the writ of execution. granted the motion and issued the writ of execution. 1995. — Whenever conditions in the region so warrant. petitioner appealed to public respondent Labor Secretary Leonardo A. petitioner maintained that it complied with Wage Order No. 1997. 1996. the sheriff seized petitioner's dump truck and scheduled its public sale on March 20.. the Regional Board shall investigate and study all pertinent facts. the Regional Wage Board issued Wage Order No. this Court issued a TRO enjoining respondents from enforcing the writ of execution. They found that petitioner violated the wage order as it did not implement an across the board increase in the salary of its employees. In an Order dated December 16. Sr. On March 5. shall proceed to determine whether a Wage Order should be issued. and CARSUMCO EMPLOYEES UNION Ponente: J. RO2-02 as it paid the mandated increase in the minimum wage. the DOLE regional sheriff served on petitioner a notice of garnishment of its account with the Far East Bank and Trust Company. No. Regional Director Martinet. 128399 January 15. RO2-02-A is concerned. Any such Wage Order shall take effect after (15) days from its complete publication in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation in the region.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION merely clarified the ambiguous provision of the original wage order. the real intention of the Regional Board was to provide for an across the board increase. Martinez. Petitioner clearly complied with Wage Order RO2-02 which provided for an increase in statutory minimum wage rates for employees in Region II. Sr. is set aside for lack of merit. Public respondents insist that despite the wording of Wage Order RO2-02 providing for a statutory increase in minimum wage. in violation of Article 123 of the Labor Code. In sum. Indeed. they urge that petitioner is liable for merely providing an increase in the statutory minimum wage rates of its employees. The Decision of the Secretary of Labor. The petition is GRANTED. The contention is absurd. It is not just to expect petitioner to interpret Wage RO2-02 to mean that it granted an across the board increase as such interpretation is not sustained by its text. Hence. We likewise find that public respondent Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the findings of Regional Director Ricardo S. 1996. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 298 . that petitioner violated Wage Order RO2-02. dated October 8. the Regional Wage Board had to amend Wage Order RO2-02 to clarify this alleged intent. we hold that RO2-02-A is invalid for lack of public consultations and hearings and nonpublication in a newspaper of general circulation.

The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) moved for reconsideration.00) per day shall also receive an increase of seventeen pesos (P17. On November 14. dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. 1991 Petitioner: EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondents: NATIONAL WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION AND REGIONAL TRIPARTITE WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY BOARD-NCR. Precisely. 1990. On November 6. by providing for full-time boards to police wages round-the-clock. ECOP appealed to the National Wages and Productivity Commission. 6727 was intended to rationalize wages. ECOP opposed. and second. 6727. 96169 September 24. The Court is of the opinion that Congress meant the boards to be creative in resolving the annual question of wages without labor and management knocking on the legislature's door at every turn. which has reduced disputes arising from wage distortions (brought about. TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES Ponente: J. the Regional Board of the National Capital Region issued Wage Order No. 1990. as follows: Section 1. Upon the effectivity of this Wage Order.00) per day. so did the Personnel Management Association of the Philippines (PMAP). by giving the boards enough powers to achieve this objective. 1990 of the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board. 1990. No. 2011 – 0151 ECOP VS. by the floor-wage method). NCR-01-A amending Wage Order No. apparently. On October 23. Held: The Commission noted that the increasing trend is toward the salary-cap method. the Board issued Wage Order No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. National Capital Region. the Commission denied reconsideration. first. NWPC G. SARMIENTO Facts: On October 15. NCR-01.00 daily in the National Capital Region. Republic Act No. all workers and employees in the private sector in the National Capital Region already receiving wages above the statutory minimum wage rates up to one hundred and twenty-five pesos (P125. Issue: The Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) is questioning the validity of Wage Order No. 1990. The petition is DENIED. increasing the minimum wage by P17. promulgated pursuant to the authority of Republic Act No. NCR-01.R. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 299 . the Commission promulgated an Order. NCR-01-A dated October 23. Ines H.

0 ANG ANTAS NG PAGPAPASUWELDO SA MGA GURO SA MATAAS NA PAARALAN AY UMAALINSUNOD SA PARAAN NG PAGRARANGGONG KALAKIP NITO BILANG "TAKDA" AT AYON PA RIN SA SUMUSUNOD NA HALAGA NG PAGPAPASUWELDO (IPATUTUPAD SA AÑO-ESCOLAR 1983-1986): PAGSUBOK A (1-3 TAON) P51. 1983 increasing the minimum daily living allowance in the private sector. FERNAN Facts: Petitioner is a private educational institution duly organized and existing under Philippine laws. Ines H. and .00 When the collective bargaining agreement was entered into. 1987. Bulacan.J. 2011 – 0151 MEYCAUAYAN COLLEGE VS.00 KLASE II (9-12 TAON) P54. the following presidential decrees were in effect: (a) P. (b) P. 1751 dated May 14. 3 dated November 7. During the lifetime of the collective bargaining agreement. 1980 increasing the statutory daily minimum wage at all levels by P4. 1978 adjusting the existing statutory minimum wages. No. On January 16. 2 increasing the mandatory basic minimum wage and living allowance was also issued on July 6. 1983. then headed by Mrs. 1983 just before the collective bargaining agreement herein involved was entered into.00 after integrating the mandatory emergency living allowance under P. Nos.00 (6-8 TAON) P53. Prior to said recognition or on July 17.00 KLASE III (13-14 TAON) P57. (c) P.00 KLASE V (18-21 TAON) P63. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 300 . petitioner and the union. No. Teresita V. 4.50 KLASE 1 (4-5 TAON) P52.D. DRILON G. 81144 May 7.D No. 1990 Petitioner: MEYCAUAYAN COLLEGE Respondents: HONORABLE FRANKLIN M.00 (22 PATAAS) P70. 1980 providing for an increase in the minimum daily wage rates and for additional mandatory living allowances.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. No. DRILON. its board of trustees recognized the Meycauayan College Faculty and Personnel Association as the employees union in the Meycauayan College. in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment and MEYCAUAYAN COLLEGE FACULTY AND PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION (MCFPA) Ponente: C. the following were issued: (a) Wage Order No. 1389 dated May 29. Lim. Article IV thereof provides: SALARY SCALE IV. 1713 dated August 18. and operating in Meycauayan. 525 and 1123 into the basic pay of all covered workers. Wage Order No.00 KLASE IV (15-17 TAON) P60.D.D. entered into a collective bargaining agreement for 1983-1986.R.

6 dated October 26. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 301 . preclude the employees from claiming the difference between their old salaries and those provided for under said salary scale. and (d) Wage Order No. entitled to the fulfillment of the obligation prescribed therein. Fe Villarico. a collective bargaining agreement is a contractual obligation. Regional Office No.D.800 a month. Such refusal would constitute an unfair labor practice. a notice of strike on the ground of unfair labor practice alleging therein violation of the collective bargaining agreement particularly the provisions of Article IV thereof on salary scale. It is distinct from an obligation imposed by law. the relief sought for violating a CBA is ordinarily for compliance and desistance. which are over and above the agreed salary scale contracted for between the employer and the employees in a collective bargaining agreement. shortly after union president Mrs. Nos. 4 dated May 1. 1984 integrating as of said date the emergency cost of living allowances under P. Teresita V. by right. 1634 and 1713 into the basic pay of covered workers in the private sector. Pampanga. Consequently. to deny binding force to the collective bargaining agreement would place a premium on a refusal by a party thereto to comply with the terms of the agreement. And while the relief sought for violation of a standard law or decree is primarily for restitution of unpaid benefits. however. Issue: Whether increases in employees' salaries resulting from the implementation of presidential decrees and wage orders. As correctly ruled by public respondent. III in San Fernando. Beneficiaries thereof are therefore. Consequently. (c) Wage Order No. The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the parties. The union admits herein that its members were paid all these increases in pay mandated by law. there is no provision in the aforecited Presidential Decrees providing that compliance thereto is sufficient compliance with a provision of a collective bargaining agreement and vice-versa. It appears. on March 27. the union filed with the Department of Labor and Employment. had turned over the presidency of the union to Mrs. 1984 increasing the daily living allowances. Moreover. that in 1987.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION (b) Wage Order No. 1984 increasing the cost of living allowance of workers in the private sector whose basic salary or wage is not more than P1. 1987. who held the managerial position of registrar of the college. 5 dated June 11. Held: Non-compliance with the mandate of a standards law or decree may give rise to an ordinary action for recovery while violation of a collective bargaining agreement may even give rise to a criminal action for unfair labor practice. 1614. Lim. the latter unintentionally got a copy of the collective bargaining agreement and discovered that Article IV thereof had not been implemented by the petitioner.

307.74. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE VS. which is P4. but its remedy lies not in the judiciary but in the lawmaking body. may be used for the improvement and modernization of infrastructure and for the payment of other costs of operation. PANGANIBAN Facts. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE Respondents: ST. respondent averred that 85% of P4. then the whole amount of the increase in tuition fee.170. ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE WORKERS ASSOCIATION G. 2011 – 0151 ST. non-profit Catholic educational institution while respondent is a legitimate labor organization which is currently the official bargaining representative of all employees of petitioner except the faculty and consultants of the Graduate School. Ines H.59 should have been released to its members as provided for in their CBA effective June 1. like scholars. 1999 to May 31. of the contention of petitioner that in the event that its total tuition income is lesser than that in the previous year. For the SY 2000-2001.58. 85% of which is equivalent to P1. the number of dropouts who. No. 155609 January 17.906. as such. Respondent has an existing CBA with petitioner for the period from June 1. Consequently. managerial employees and those who occupy confidential positions. and not merely up to 30 percent as provided by law.801. Petitioner is a non-stock.560. shall be taken only from the remaining 30 percent. the incremental proceeds from the tuition fees increase for SY 2000-2001 is P1. The law plainly states that 70 percent of the tuition fee increase shall be allotted for the teaching and the nonteaching personnel.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines.R. and that the payment of other costs of operation. Plainly unsupported by the law or jurisprudence is petitioner’s contention that the payment of such benefits should be based not only on the rate of tuition fee increases. The law does not speak.360. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 302 . and the bad debts incurred by the school. Based on petitioner’s computation.326. do not pay the whole fees.33. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION (SAMAHAN) Ponente: J. Issue: How should the 70%-30% tuition fee increase be allocated? Held: The law allows an increase in school tuition fees on the condition that 70 percent of the increase shall go to the payment of personnel benefits. together with the improvement of the school’s infrastructure. 2000. 2005 Petitioner: ST. 2004. petitioner increased its tuition fees for all its departments. the number of those exempt from paying the fees.942. The financial dilemma of petitioner may deserve sympathy and support. but also on other factors like the decrease in the number of enrollees. directly or indirectly.

Finally. emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA) and 13th month pay. AL. a coconut plantation utilized as a demonstration farm for replanting and/or training area for coconut farmers.R. This we are unable to do for the payrolls submitted by it support the latters' position. HON. Alex Edicto and Delia Pahuwayan. A three (3) year actual payrolls from March 1985 to February 1989 showing the daily actual payment made by the respondent to involved workers are substantial evidence against the mere memorandum issued by the respondents on the matter. as found by public respondents. there would have been no need for petitioner to make an offer increasing the wage to P45. Findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but finality. Held: Petitioner would have us overturn the factual finding of public respondents that its employees are daily paid workers. such payrolls submitted by respondents are not mere summaries of daily efforts of workers but these are daily records showing workers actual daily rate. Undersecretary of the Department of Labor and Employment and HON. Moreover. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was justified in paying an amount less than the statutory minimum wage. complainants worked for less than eight hours. 1995 Petitioners: COCOFED (Kalamansig) and/or CRISPIN ROSETE Respondents: HON. CRESENCIANO B. Cotabato City. located in Kalamansig. On November 15. Summary Petitioner submitted its position paper claiming that it should be classified as an establishment with less than 30 employees and with a paid-up capital of P500. Ines H. notice of inspection results was issued: requiring petitioner to effect restitution or correction within five (5) days from notice. BALANAG.000. as it claimed and if their wages were not underpaid.00 per day if complainants were indeed piece rate workers. Further. Ponente: J. 1988.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. 982767 February 15. Accordingly. Regional XII. DOLE. The inspection revealed that petitioner was guilty of underpayment of wages. a complaint inspection was conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment. MELENCIO Q. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 303 . VS. CRESENCIANO B. The petition is DISMISSED. TRAJANO. there is absolutely nothing in the records which show that petitioner's employees worked for less than eight hours. No.00 or less as evidenced by the assessment of the municipal treasurer. TRAJANO G. Moreover. a minimum of four and maximum of six. Sultan Kudarat. Cotabato City in response to complaints filed by two of petitioner's employees. Romero Facts: Philippine Coconut Producers Federation operates petitioner COCOFED (Kalamansig). Director IV. 2011 – 0151 COCOFED ET. Region XII.

No. 6640 in the aggregate amount of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND AND FORTY EIGHT PESOS (P48..LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. 2011 – 0151 CEBU OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE CO. 6640 in the aggregate amount of EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND AND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P83. Upon completion of the inspection on March 10.P300 to each covered employee. 6640. 1989 Petitioner: CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO. 6640. 6640. VS. On December 14. in sum. 3) For the third year which will be paid on January 16.A. 1) For the first year which will be paid on January 14. Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. INC. a Labor and Employment Development Officer. which prohibits the employer from crediting the anniversary wage increases provided in collective bargaining agreements. REGIONAL OFFICE NO. No. No. do not prohibit the crediting of CBA anniversary wage increases for purposes of compliance with it. The law itself cannot be expanded by such regulations.A. Cebu Oxygen. 1987. the amount that should only be ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 304 . pursuant to Inspection Authority No. 82849 August 2. (COACO) Respondents: SECRETARY FRANKLIN M. he found that petitioner committed violations of the law as follows: 1. However.00). Under payment of Basic Wage per R. On February 22. and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. INC. 1987 .. 058-88. 1986 .P 200 to each covered employee. 6640 was passed increasing the minimum wage. 1988 . Thus petitioner's contention that the salary increases granted by it pursuant to the existing CBA including anniversary wage increases should be considered in determining compliance with the wage increase mandated by Republic Act No. DRILON OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. 6640 covering the period of two (2) months representing 208 employees who are not receiving wages above P100/day prior to the effectivity of R. is correct.00). 1988. ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR CANDIDO CUMBA OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.048. representing 208 employees who are not receiving wages above P 100/day prior to the effectivity of R. commenced a routine inspection of petitioner's establishment. Acetylene and Central Visayas Employees Association (COAVEA) entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering the years 1986 to 1988. 7 AND CEBU OXYGEN-ACETYLENE & CENTRAL VISAYAS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (COACVEA) Ponente: J. GANCAYCO Facts: Petitioner and the union of its rank and file employees. and 2. No. 2) For the second year which will be paid on January 16. Section 8 of the implementing rules prohibits the employer from crediting anniversary wage increases negotiated under a collective bargaining agreement against such wage increases mandated by Republic Act No. and based on payrolls and other records. 6640. Republic Act No. Issue: Whether or not an Implementing Order of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (DOLE) can provide for a prohibition not contemplated by the law it seeks to implement. Ines H.A.P200 to each covered employee. The implementing rules cannot provide for such a prohibition not contemplated by the law. is a fundamental rule that implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of law it is designed to implement. The provisions of Republic Act No. Under payment of 13th month pay for the year 1987.R. Held: The issue of the validity of Section 8 of the rules implementing Republic Act No. 1988. DRILON G.200.

is hereby declared null and void in so far as it excludes the anniversary wage increases negotiated under collective bargaining agreements from being credited to the wage increase provided for under the said Act. The wage increase for 1986 had already accrued in favor of the employees even before the said law was enacted. Section 8 of the rules implementing Republic 6640.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION credited to petitioner is the wage increase for 1987 under the CBA when the law took effect. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 305 . The petition is hereby GRANTED.

ANTONIO PUBLICO. Petitioner claimed it complied with the Labor Code provisions. JAIME DORADO. Petitioner in its reply argued that complainants were estopped from denying their quitclaims on the ground of equity. JR. They alleged that management pressured them to sign documents which they were not allowed to read and that if such waiver existed. DANIEL MINGLANA. petitioner deducted P100 as administrative cost and P20 as bond. contended that on July 21. Department of Labor and Employment. G. Alarmed by a possible abandonment of post by the guards and mindful of its contractual obligations to its clients/principals. in his capacity as Regional Director (DOLE). MARCIANO BOLOCON. PIEZAS. JERRY GA. and. premium pay for holiday work. it submitted the "Quitclaim and Waiver" of thirty-four (34) complainants. that they were not paid their premium pay and overtime pay for working on the eleven (11) legal holidays per year. and that complainant's allegation of coercion or threat was a mere afterthought. JOSE MIRANDA. FRANCISCO VERZOSA. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was denied due process? ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 306 . ET. non-payment of night shift differential. 87439 February 21.600. APSIN PAGAYAO. HERMINIGILDO BARGAS. that service incentive leaves not availed of. six (6) of the seventeen (17) complainants who repudiated their quitclaims again executed quitclaims and waivers. Private respondents alleged in their position paper that their latest monthly salary was P1. BENJAMIN UY. LEOPOLDO SAAVEDRA. 1990 Petitioner: ODIN SECURITY AGENCY Respondents: HON. and in support thereof. so those who failed to comply were placed on "AWOL" status. SIXTO LIPER. National Capital Region and SERGIO APILADO. and holidays were paid in cash. 1986. HON. Petitioner. vacation and sick leaves. ANASTACIO SANTILLAN. illegal deductions. DE LA SERNA. GRIÑO-AQUINO Facts: On July 8. PLARIDEL ELORIA. that being high school graduates.AL. GUILLERMO ELLARES. in his capacity as Undersecretary.R. WILFREDO QUIROZ. that since private respondents were relieved or constructively dismissed. LUNA C. rest days. rest days and Sundays. ARTURO FACTOR. they did not have any intention of waiving their rights under the law. Those relieved were ordered to report to the agency's main office for reassignment. WILLIAM ADAMI. HON. CRISOSTOMO FONSECA. Only few complied. underpayment of wages. service incentive leaves. 2011 – 0151 ODIN SECURITY AGENCY VS. No. they must also be paid backwages. overtime pay. FRANCISCO GUINSATAO. DIONISIO DELA SERNA. that from this amount. seventeen (17) complainants repudiated their quitclaim and waiver. night shift differential.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jabines. petitioner relieved and re-assigned the complaining guards to other posts in Metro Manila.. DANIEL FERUISH. It further alleged that complainants who rendered over-time work as shown by their time sheets were paid accordingly. GEORGE ORQUESTA. and 13th-month pay. some 48 security guards threatened mass action against it. on October 21. ARMANDO YUMUL. the parties were required to submit their position papers. WARLITO ILAGA. NICANOR FEREAS. on the other hand. 1986. DIONISIO C. Earlier. MAMERTO GENER. JOVANY SERATO. ROLANDO FERNANDEZ. When conciliation efforts failed. Later. 1986. ALLAN MANALLA. EDWIN ORDONA and DEMETRIO TORRES Ponente: J. a complaint was filed by Sergio Apilado and fifty-five (55) others charging the petitioner Odin Security Agency. complainants fully understood the document they signed. Ines H.

provided there still exists an employer-employee relationship. Inc. 5. and the findings of the regional office is not contested by the employer concerned. There is abundant jurisprudence to the effect that the requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are given an opportunity to submit position papers (Parel. vs. The petitioner was not denied due process for several hearings were in fact conducted by the hearing officer of the Regional Office of the DOLE and the parties submitted position papers upon which the Regional Director based his decision in the case. it was not denied due process.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: The petition has no merit. the Court said that it is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief. and filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 23. it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power. Amores. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 307 . to escape a penalty. 1989 of the Undersecretary of Labor are hereby affirmed. and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims. 1988 decision of the Labor Undersecretary. it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits. 152 SCRA 237). to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction. Under the present rules.) The petition is dismissed and the orders dated March 23. 1988 and March 13. submitted a position paper. (p. Furthermore. 156 SCRA 768. Adamson & Adamson. Since petitioner herein participated in the hearings. a Regional Director exercises both visitorial and enforcement power over labor standards cases. Decision.

the personnel officer of the hotel issued a certificate of clearance to the effect that respondent. 1991. who was leaving Admiral Hotel effective June 30. PHONE IS USED A LOT ON PERSONAL CALLS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HOTEL BUSINESS. Admiral Hotel hired Angelina M. 1991. effective at the close of office hours of June 30. Harris D. On June 29. Victoria A.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jao. Balani was due to her resignation or it was a constructive dismissal on the part of the admiralty realty company. 1. 13th month pay and participation in service charges. 3. BALANI Ponente: PARDO. Concepcion. overtime.898. On July 16. HELD: We agree with the petitioner.: FACTS: On July 1976. had been cleared of obligations and/or accountabilities. On June 21. 2010-0083 Case Title: ADMIRALTY REALTY VS NLRC GR NO: GR NO. 112043 Date: May 18. On the memorandum issued it was stated that Mrs. petitioner accepted the resignation with deep regret. On June 25. 1991. 1991. MAKING A BUSINESS OF LENDING MONEY TO CO-EMPLOYEES. vacation and sick leave. 1991. Respondent claims that she was constructively dismissed from her office as its location was transferred from under the steps of the stairs to the kitchen. respondent received the sum of ten thousand eight hundred ninety eight pesos and ten centavos (P10. denying the charges leveled against her. ENTERTAIN MANY PERSONAL VISITORS DURING OFFICE HOURS. On June 28. Balani committed the following. Such transfer caused her mental torture which forced her to resign. 1991. petitioner. However. Balani as Cost Controller. 1999 Petitioner: ADMIRALTY REALTY COMPANY INC. Respondent: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ANGELINA M. J. respondent replied thereto. 2. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 308 .10) for her salary. Indeed. ISSUE: Whether the termination of Mrs. 1991. On June 22. She occupied and served in that position for fifteen (15) years. through Managing Director Ma. respondent submitted a letter of resignation. 1991. it was not shown that her transfer was prompted by ill will of management. The Court is convinced that this is a case of voluntary resignation. by reason of resignation. issued a memorandum. the manager of the hotel swore that the transfer affected not only the Cost Control office but also other offices.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION The transfer involved only a change in location of the office. "The Court will not permit such a situation. To allow respondent to repudiate the same will be to countenance unjust enrichment on her part. With respect to the memorandum requiring the private respondent to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for violations of hotel rules. She voluntarily resigned from employment and signed the quitclaim and waiver after receiving all the benefits for her separation. There is no showing that petitioner was coerced into resigning from the company." ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 309 . we find that the memorandum was not unreasonable nor an act of harassment that left petitioner with no choice but to resign. unattended by demotion in rank or diminution of pay or bad faith. It does not involve a change in petitioner's position. On the contrary. respondent resigned without any element of coercion attending her option. Even a transfer in position is valid when based on sound judgment.

As a result of the accident she was not able to continue with her work. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SINCLICITA CANDIDO GANCAYCO. However. she was paid on a piece rate basis. 94951 April 22.: FACTS: Private respondent Sinclita Candido was employed by petitioner Apex Mining Company. Book 3 of the Labor Code.00 a month which was ultimately increased to P575.000. She was permitted to go on leave for medication. Florendo D. entitled to appropriate relief as a regular ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 310 . Petitioner denies having illegally dismissed private respondent and maintains that respondent abandoned her work. ISSUE: Whether Sinclitica Candido is a domestic helper or a regular employee. the difference in their circumstances is that in the former instance they are actually serving the family while in the latter case. service is being rendered in the staffhouses or within the premises of the business of the employer. whether it is a corporation or a single proprietorship engaged in business or industry or any other agricultural or similar pursuit. domestic servant or laundrywoman in a home or in a company staffhouse may be similar in nature. warrants the conclusion that such househelper or domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee of the employer and not as a mere family househelper or domestic servant as contemplated in Rule XIII. J. on January 17. She reported the accident to her immediate supervisor Mila de la Rosa and to the personnel officer. Section l(b). there is enough evidence to show that because of an accident which took place while private respondent was performing her laundry services. HELD: The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home of said employer. In such instance. as amended. they are employees of the company or employer in the business concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular employee. De la Rosa offered her the amount of P 2. On December 18. Davao del Norte.00 a month. therefore. as in its staffhouses for its guest or even for its officers and employees. 1991 APEX MINING COMPANY INC. 1973 to perform laundry services at its staff house located at Masara. Maco. Asirit. but she refused the offer and preferred to return to work. while she was attending to her assigned task and she was hanging her laundry. The mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working within the premises of the business of the employer and in relation to or in connection with its business.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jao. 1982. Petitioner did not allow her to return to work and dismissed her on February 4.00 to persuade her to quit her job. The Court finds no merit in making any such distinction.000. on May 18. Inc. While it may be true that the nature of the work of a househelper. 2010-0083 Case Title: GR NO: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: APEX MINING VS NLRC GR NO. she was paid on a monthly basis at P250. Harris D.00 which was eventually increased to P5. In the beginning. She is. This argument notwithstanding. 1988. she was not able to work and was ultimately separated from the service. Petitioner contends that it is only when the househelper or domestic servant is assigned to certain aspects of the business of the employer that such househelper or domestic servant may be considered as such as employee. 1987. she accidentally slipped and hit her back on a stone.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION employee of petitioner. the payment of separation pay to her is in order. Inasmuch as private respondent appears not to be interested in returning to her work for valid reasons. No pronouncement as to costs. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 311 . the petition is DISMISSED and the appealed decision and resolution of public respondent NLRC are hereby AFFIRMED. WHEREFORE.

Acting on the letter – complaint. 1990 Vicente Atilano / Rose Shipping Lines Dionisio C De la Serna. Respondent Regional Director subsequently summoned the parties to conciliation conferences the first of which was held on August 5. and company Feliciano. Vicente Atilano. allowances. The conference was then rescheduled to August 16. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 312 . Cebu City. no actual inspection was effected because the owner. petitioner could have presented whatever he had in his books and records to refute the claims of private respondents. 1985 where only the complainants (private respondents herein) appeared. The letter – complaint alleged violations by petitioner of labor standard laws on minimum wages. 82488 February 28. the Office of the Regional Director ordered a Labor Standards and Welfare Officer to conduct a complaint inspection on July 22. allegedly on a business trip to Manila. Petitioner did not file any position paper. Harris D. SO ORDERED. 1985 and there the private respondents submitted their position paper elaborating and documenting their claims. and his employees declined to allow the inspection in his absence. 2010-0083 Case Title: GR NO: Date: Pettitioner: Respondent: Ponente: Atilano vs Dela Cruz GR NO. J: Facts: On May 20.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jao. against petitioner Rose Shipping Lines and its Proprietor/Manager Vicente Atilano docketed as LSED Case No. Another hearing was held on August 21. However. 1985 at the establishment of petitioner in Cebu City. 055-85. petitioner did not do so and his failure must be deemed a waiver of his right to contest the conclusions of the Regional Director on the basis of the evidence and records actually made available to him. 13th month pay and overtime pay. private respondents filed a letter – complaint in the Regional Office of the then Ministry of Labor and Employment. Held: The lack of inspection was cured when the Regional Director called the parties to several conferences. 1985 and on that meeting both the parties were represented. Adriran Lomuntad. Issue: Whether or not the public respondents have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Costs against petitioner. the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. petitioner Mr. 1995. WHEREFORE.

petitioner’s wife. but. 1982. or for eleven years. On January 25. eleven days after her accident. Her husband. Mrs. Government has yet to perform its declared policy to free the people from poverty. Moments later. J: Facts: Before her death on February 19. Belarmino who was in her 8th month of pregnancy. 1982. Harris D. while performing her duties as a classroom teacher. WHEREFORE. She had been a classroom teacher since October 18. at nine o’clock in the morning. 90204 May 11. 1990 Manuel Belarmino Employees’ Compensation Commission GRINA – AQUINO. For several days. plus attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the award. was a classroom teacher of the Department of Education. Culture and Sports assigned at the Buracan Elementary School in Dimasalang. needless of the advice of her female co-teachers to take a leave of absence. Masbate. accidentally slipped and fell on the classroom floor. is also a public school teacher. Issue: Whether Belarmino is entitled to death benefits. and improve the quality of life for all. Oania Belarmino. she continued to suffer from recurrent abdominal pain and a feeling of heaviness in her stomach. On January 14.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jao. with legal rate of interest from the filing of the claim until it is fully paid. she continued to report to school because there was much work to do. she complained of abdominal pain and stomach cramps. 1971. 2010-0083 Case Title: GR NO: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: Belarmino vs Employees Compensation Commission GR NO. the petitioner. extend to them a decent standard of living. The respondents employees compensation commission and the government service insurance system are ordered to pay death benefits to the petitioner and/or the dependents of the late Oania Belarmino. provide adequate social services. Held: The government is not entirely blameless for her death for it is not entirely blameless for her poverty. 1982. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 313 . the petition for certiorari is granted. she went into labor and prematurely delivered a baby girl at home. and costs of suit.

Harris D.00. the Regional Director issued a Writ of Execution whereby some movable properties of the hospital (petitioner herein) were levied upon and its operating expenses kept with the bank were garnished.237. Judgment having become final and executory. 1990 Petitioner: BROKENSHIRE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INC. After due healing the Regional Director rendered a decision dated November 16. the power to order compliance with labor standards ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 314 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jao.: FACTS: Petitioner contends that the respondent Minister of Labor and Employment acted without. Considering further that the aggregate claims involve an amount in excess of P5. as amended. in the total amount of P163. Region XI. 5. and now petitioner in this case). 1984 with the Regional Office of the MOLE. The levy and garnishment were lifted when petitioner hospital paid the claim of the private respondents (281 hospital employees) directly. J.047. it is our shared view that the findings of the labor regulations officers may not be deemed uncontested as to bring the case at bar within the competence of the Regional Director. B) That the Regional Director erred in not ruling on the counterclaim raised by the respondent (in the labor case. 1984 in favor of private respondents. VS MINISTER OF LABOR GR NO: GR NO. be ventilated and resolved. However. C) That the Regional Director erred -in skirting the constitutional and legal issues raised. This case originated from a complaint filed by private respondents against petitioner on September 21. 2010-0083 Case Title: BROKENSHIRE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INC. as duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor. HELD: Based on the foregoing considerations. Davao City for non-compliance with the provisions of Wage Order No. not in a summary proceeding before the Regional Director under Article 128 of the Labor Code. ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Director has jurisdiction over money claims of workers concurrent with the Labor Arbiter. including the proposal of petitioner that the obligation of private respondents to the former in the aggregate amount of P507. as amended. AFUAN Ponente: PARAS.000. but in accordance With the more formal and extensive proceeding before the Labor Arbiter. We find it more appropriate that the issue of petitioner hospital's liability therefor. Respondent: MINISTER OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT AND BROKENSHIRE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES AND WORKER'S UNION-FFW Represented by EDUARDO A. pursuant to Article 128 of the Labor Code.50 covering the period from June 16 to October 15. 1984. it should be emphasized that the amount of the employer's liability is not quite a factor in determining the jurisdiction of the Regional Director. Nevertheless. 74621 Date: February 7. or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in failing to hold: A) That the Regional Director committed grave abuse of discretion in asserting exclusive jurisdiction and in not certifying this case to the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission for a full-blown hearing on the merits.57 be used to offset its obligations to them.

to the Labor Arbiter for proper proceedings. as reconsidered. WHEREFORE. The case is REFERRED. Curative statutes have long been considered valid in our jurisdiction. 1985. is SET ASIDE.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION provisions may not be exercised where the employer contends or questions the findings of the labor regulation officers and raises issues which cannot be determined without taking into account evidentiary matters not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.047. We do not see any vested right that will be impaired by the application of RA 6715.. We hold that the instant case falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter RA 6715 is in the nature of a curative statute. SO ORDERED. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 315 . Viewed in the light of RA 6715 and read in consonance with the case of Briad Agro Development Corp. In this case. the assailed decision of the Regional Director dated April 12.50 pursuant to the decision rendered in the first complaint. as long as they do not affect vested rights. if the respondents are so minded. as in the case at bar. the only claim that should be deliberated upon by the Labor Arbiter should be limited to the second amount given by the Regional Director in the second complaint together with the proposal to offset the obligations. Inasmuch as petitioner had already paid the claims of private respondents in the amount of P163.

Private respondent Edgardo Viguesilla and twenty two (22) others are members of aforesaid union and former employees of petitioner. the other cases separately filed in different fora by Danilo Canares. EDGARDO VIGUESILLA Quisumbing. subject matter and issues. private respondents' claims in this case are based on underpayment of wages. J: Facts: Petitioner is a duly organized corporation operating its printing business in Visita St. Dexter Mitschek and Ruel Viray involved different issues which are distinct and have no bearing on the case at bar. and Viray's complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Batangas. Private respondent CFW-Magkakaisang Lakas ng mga Manggagawa sa Cheniver Deco Print Technic Corporation is a registered labor union affiliated with the Confederation of Free Workers (CFW). petitioner gave its employees up to the end of June 1992 to inform management of their willingness to go with petitioner.7 Resignation must be voluntary and made with the intention of relinquishing the office. Resignation is inconsistent with the filing of the said complaint. petitioner informed its workers about the transfer of the company from its site in Makati to Sto. Thus. On the other hand. 9 As to petitioner's assertion that private respondents resorted to forum shopping. Earlier. As noted by the Solicitor General. 122876 February 17. CFWMAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA CHENIVER DECO PRINT TECHNIC CORPORATION. 11 Gabucan's case involves reinstatement to her job. Issue: Whether the wage differential should be given different and independent from monetary benefits? Held: Petitioner's contention that private respondents resigned from their jobs.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jao. 2000 Cheniver Deco Print Technics Corporation NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION). Cruz. otherwise. service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay. In view of the impending transfer. hence.. Harris D. 2010-0083 Case title: GR NO: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: Cheniver Deco Print Technics Corporation vs National Labor Relations Commission GR NO. Barangay Sta. Petitioner decided to relocate its business in view of the expiration of the lease contract on the premises it occupied in Makati and the refusal of the lessor to renew the same. the subsequent transfer of petitioner to another place hardly accessible to its workers resulted in the latter's untimely separation from the service not to their own liking. the local authorities also took action to force out petitioner from Makati because of the alleged hazards petitioner's plant posed to the residents nearby. it would have been illogical for private respondents herein to resign and then file a complaint for illegal dismissal. it would hire replacements. 1992. Aurelia Gabucan. Makati. does not appear convincing. there is no basis for petitioner's forum shopping charge as the instant case and the others do not raise identical causes of action. Tomas. accompanied with an act of relinquishment. 8 Indeed. As public respondent observed. The records disclose that on June 5.10 The case pursued by Canares is for diminution of salary on account of his demotion which was decided in his favor with finality by this Court. 12 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 316 . Mitschek's case pertains to diminution of his salary. not construable as resignation. legal holiday pay. the same deserves scant consideration.

Cost against petitioners. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 317 . 1992 in case number NRC-00-9112-CI-001. Hence.00 wage increase. the wage differential received by private respondents by virtue of the mandated wage increase is different from the monetary benefits herein being claimed by private respondents. public respondent cannot be faulted for grave abuse of discretion on this score.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Lastly.13 Certainly. WHEREFORE. This is not correct. petitioner alleges that claims of other private respondents have already been paid upon the enforcement of the order dated February 26. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General. and the assailed RESOLUTIONS of public respondent are AFFIRMED. the instant petition is DENIED. NCR-02 mandating P2. the aforesaid order refers to the enforcement of Wage Order No.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jao. that of ferrying passengers for a fee. GSIS comes to us on petition for review on certiorari reiterating its position that SPO2 Alegre's death lacks the requisite element of compensability which is. 2 the appellate court reversed the ECC's decision and ruled that SPO2 Alegre's death was workconnected and. Issue: May a moonlighting policeman's death be considered compensable? Held: Taking together jurisprudence and the pertinent guidelines of the ECC with respect to claims for death benefits. Private respondent finally obtained a favorable ruling in the Court of Appeals when on February 28. In its decision on August 7. or peacekeeping nature of the act attended to by the policeman at the time he ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 318 . Alegre. A verbal tussle then ensued between the two which led to the fatal shooting of the deceased police officer. Subsequent appeal to the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) proved futile as said body. the employee must have been executing an order for the employer. namely: (a) that the employee must be at the place where his work requires him to be. (b) that the employee must have been performing his official functions. denied the claim on the ground that at the time of SPO2 Alegre's death. Ilocos Sur. that the activity being performed at the time of death must be work-connected. J. 1999 GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and FELONILA ALEGRE ROMERO. he was driving his tricycle and ferrying passengers within the vicinity of Imelda Commercial Complex when SPO4 Alejandro Tenorio. SPO2 Alegre allegedly snubbed SPO4 Tenorio and even directed curse words upon the latter.êt On account of her husband's death. and (c) that if the injury is sustained elsewhere. 1996. Team/Desk Officer of the Police Assistance Center located at said complex. SPO2 Florencio A.. confronted him regarding his tour of duty. private respondent seasonably filed a claim for death benefits with petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. was a police officer assigned to the Philippine National Police station in the town of Vigan. 626. in a decision dated May 9. On that fateful day of December 6. Harris D. the GSIS. however. Facts: Felonila Alegre's deceased husband. 1995. 2010-0083 Case title: GR NO: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs COURT OF APPEALS and FELONILA ALEGRE GR No. compensable. In the absence of such prior authority as in the cases of Hinoguin and Nitura. Obviously.. was intrinsically private and unofficial in nature proceeding as it did from no particular directive or permission of his superior officer. the matter SPO2 Alegre was attending to at the time he met his death. he was performing a personal activity which was not work-connected. it is not difficult to understand then why SPO2 Alegre's widow should be denied the claims otherwise due her. 1994. 128524 April 20. therefore.. Jr. 1997. Aggrieved. merely affirmed the ruling of the GSIS.

R. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 319 . there is no justification for holding that SPO2 Alegre met the requisites set forth in the ECC guidelines. WHEREFORE. as in the case of P/Sgt. is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In other words. Alvaran. although not on official line of duty.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION died even without the explicit permission or directive of a superior officer. 1997. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG. as applied to policemen and soldiers. serves more as an after-the-fact validation of their acts to place them within the scope of the guidelines rather than a blanket license to benefit them in all situations that may give rise to their deaths. SP No. 8 At any rate. he was refusing to render one pointing out that he had already complied with the duty detail. the petition is hereby GRANTED. That he may be called upon at any time to render police work as he is considered to be on a round-theclock duty and was not on an approved vacation leave will not change the conclusion arrived at considering that he was not placed in a situation where he was required to exercise his authority and duty as a policeman. In fact. the 24hour duty doctrine should not be sweepingly applied to all acts and circumstances causing the death of a police officer but only to those which. the 24-hour duty doctrine. are nonetheless basically police service in character. No pronouncement as to costs. 42003 dated February 28.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Jao, Harris D.
2010-0083
Case title:
GR NO:
Date:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Ponente:

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs COURT OF APPEALS and
FELONILA ALEGRE
GR No. 128524
April 20, 1999
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and FELONILA ALEGRE
ROMERO, J.;

Facts:
Felonila Alegre's deceased husband, SPO2 Florencio A.. Alegre, was a police officer assigned to
the Philippine National Police station in the town of Vigan, Ilocos Sur. On that fateful day of December 6,
1994, he was driving his tricycle and ferrying passengers within the vicinity of Imelda Commercial
Complex when SPO4 Alejandro Tenorio, Jr., Team/Desk Officer of the Police Assistance Center located
at said complex, confronted him regarding his tour of duty. SPO2 Alegre allegedly snubbed SPO4
Tenorio and even directed curse words upon the latter. A verbal tussle then ensued between the two
which led to the fatal shooting of the deceased police officer.êt
On account of her husband's death, private respondent seasonably filed a claim for death benefits with
petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 626. In its
decision on August 7, 1995, the GSIS, however, denied the claim on the ground that at the time of SPO2
Alegre's death, he was performing a personal activity which was not work-connected. Subsequent appeal
to the Employees' Compensation Commission (ECC) proved futile as said body, in a decision dated May
9, 1996, merely affirmed the ruling of the GSIS.
Private respondent finally obtained a favorable ruling in the Court of Appeals when on February 28, 1997,
2
the appellate court reversed the ECC's decision and ruled that SPO2 Alegre's death was workconnected and, therefore, compensable.
Aggrieved, GSIS comes to us on petition for review on certiorari reiterating its position that SPO2 Alegre's
death lacks the requisite element of compensability which is, that the activity being performed at the time
of death must be work-connected.
Issue:
May a moonlighting policeman's death be considered compensable?
Held:
Taking together jurisprudence and the pertinent guidelines of the ECC with respect to claims for
death benefits, namely: (a) that the employee must be at the place where his work requires him to be; (b)
that the employee must have been performing his official functions; and (c) that if the injury is sustained
elsewhere, the employee must have been executing an order for the employer, it is not difficult to
understand then why SPO2 Alegre's widow should be denied the claims otherwise due her. Obviously,
the matter SPO2 Alegre was attending to at the time he met his death, that of ferrying passengers for a
fee, was intrinsically private and unofficial in nature proceeding as it did from no particular directive or
permission of his superior officer. In the absence of such prior authority as in the cases
of Hinoguin and Nitura, or peacekeeping nature of the act attended to by the policeman at the time he

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 320

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
died even without the explicit permission or directive of a superior officer, as in the case of P/Sgt. Alvaran,
there is no justification for holding that SPO2 Alegre met the requisites set forth in the ECC guidelines.
That he may be called upon at any time to render police work as he is considered to be on a round-theclock duty and was not on an approved vacation leave will not change the conclusion arrived at
considering that he was not placed in a situation where he was required to exercise his authority and duty
as a policeman. In fact, he was refusing to render one pointing out that he had already complied with the
duty detail. 8 At any rate, the 24-hour duty doctrine, as applied to policemen and soldiers, serves more as
an after-the-fact validation of their acts to place them within the scope of the guidelines rather than a
blanket license to benefit them in all situations that may give rise to their deaths. In other words, the 24hour duty doctrine should not be sweepingly applied to all acts and circumstances causing the death of a
police officer but only to those which, although not on official line of duty, are nonetheless basically police
service in character.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 42003 dated February 28, 1997, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
No pronouncement as to costs.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 321

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

Jao, Harris D.
2010-0083
Case Title:
GR NO:
Date:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Ponente:

INTERTROD MARITIME, INC. and TROODOS SHIPPING CO. vs NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and ERNESTO DE LA CRUZ
GR NO. 81087
June 19, 1991
INTERTROD MARITIME, INC. and TROODOS SHIPPING CO.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ERNESTO DE LA CRUZ
PADILLA, J:

Facts:
Private respondent Ernesto de la Cruz signed a shipboard employment contract with petitioner
Troodos Shipping Company as principal and petitioner Intertrod Maritime, Inc., as agent to serve as Third
Engineer on board the M/T "BREEDEN" for a period of twelve (12) months with a basic monthly salary of
US$950.00.
Private respondent eventually boarded a sister vessel, M/T "AFAMIS" and proceeded to work as the
vessel's Third Engineer under the same terms and conditions of his employment contract previously
referred to.
On 26 August 1982, while the ship (M/T "Afamis") was at Port Pylos, Greece, private respondent
3
requested for relief, due to "personal reason." The Master of the ship approved his request but informed
private respondent that repatriation expenses were for his account and that he had to give thirty (30) days
notice in view of the Clause 5 of the employment contract so that a replacement for him (private
respondent) could be arranged.
On 30 August 1982, while the vessel was at Port Said in Egypt and despite the fact that it was only four
(4) days after private respondent's request for relief, the Master "signed him off" and paid him in cash all
amounts due him less the amount of US$780.00 for his repatriation expenses, as evidenced by the
wages account signed by the private respondent.
On his return to the Philippines, private respondent filed a complaint with the National Seamen Board
(NSB)(now POEA) charging petitioners for breach of employment contract and violation of NSB rules and
6
regulations. Private respondent alleged that his request for relief was made in order to take care of a
Filipino member of the crew of M/T "AFAMIS" who was hospitalized on 25 August 1982 in Athens,
Greece. However, the Master of the ship refused to let him immediately disembark in Greece so that the
reason for his request for relief ceased to exist. Hence, when the Master of the ship forced him to step out
in Egypt despite his protestations to the contrary, there being no more reason to request for relief, an
illegal dismissal occurred and he had no other recourse but to return to the Philippines at his own
expense.
In its Answer to the complaint, petitioners denied the allegations of the complainant and averred that the
contract was cut short because of private respondent's own request for relief so that it was only proper
that he should pay for his repatriation expenses in accordance with the provisions of their employment
contract.
The sole issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not complainant's termination is illegal.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 322

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
POEA rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal to the NLRC, the
decision was reversed.
Issue:
Whether or not complainant's termination is illegal.
Held:
Private respondent claims that his request for relief was only for the reason of taking care of a
fellow member of the crew so much so that when he was not allowed to disembark in Port Pylos, Greece,
the reason no longer existed and, therefore, when he was forced to "sign off" at Port Said, Egypt even
when he signified intentions of continuing his work, he was illegally dismissed. 15 We sympathize with the
private respondent; however, we cannot sustain such contention. Resignation is the voluntary act of an
employee who "finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed
in favor of the exigency of the service, then he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his
employment." 16 The employer has no control over resignations and so, the notification requirement was
devised in order to ensure that no disruption of work would be involved by reason of the resignation. This
practice has been recognized because "every business enterprise endeavors to increase its profits by
adopting a device or means designed towards that goal." 17
Resignations, once accepted and being the sole act of the employee, may not be withdrawn without the
consent of the employer. In the instant case, the Master had already accepted the resignation and,
although the private respondent was being required to serve the thirty (30) days notice provided in the
contract, his resignation was already approved. Private respondent cannot claim that his resignation
ceased to be effective because he was not immediately discharged in Port Pylos, Greece, for he could no
longer unilaterally withdraw such resignation. When he later signified his intention of continuing his work,
it was already up to the petitioners to accept his withdrawal of his resignation. The mere fact that they did
not accept such withdrawal did not constitute illegal dismissal for acceptance of the withdrawal of the
resignation was their (petitioners') sole prerogative.
Once an employee resigns and his resignation is accepted, he no longer has any right to the job. If the
employee later changes his mind, he must ask for approval of the withdrawal of his resignation from his
employer, as if he were re-applying for the job. It will then be up to the employer to determine whether or
not his service would be continued. If the employer accepts said withdrawal, the employee retains his job.
If the employer does not, as in this case, the employee cannot claim illegal dismissal for the employer has
the right to determine who his employees will be. To say that an employee who has resigned is illegally
dismissed, is to encroach upon the right of employers to hire persons who will be of service to them.
Furthermore, the employment contract also provides as follows:
4. That all terms and conditions agreed herein are for a service period of twelve (12)
months provided the vessel is in a convenient port for his repatriation, otherwise at
Master's discretion, on vessel's arrival at the first port where repatriation is practicable
provided that such continued service shall not exceed three months. 18
Under the terms of the employment contract, it is the ship's Master who determines where a seaman
requesting relief may be "signed off." It is, therefore, erroneous for private respondent to claim that his
resignation was effective only in Greece and that because he was not immediately allowed to disembark
in Greece (as the employer wanted compliance with the contractual conditions for termination on the part
of the employee), the resignation was to be deemed automatically withdrawn.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 323

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
The decision of the NLRC is therefore set aside. To sustain it would be to authorize undue oppression of
the employer. After all, "the law, in protecting the rights of the laborer, authorizes neither oppression nor
19
self-destruction of the employer."
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned resolution of the National Labor Relations
Commission dated 11 December 1987 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of then
POEA Administrator Patricia Sto. Tomas dated 20 December 1983 is REVIVED. No pronouncement as to
costs.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 324

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Jao, Harris D.
2010-0083
Case Title:
GR NO:
Date:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Ponente:

Jose Sarmento vs Employees Compensation Commission
GR NO. L-65680
May 11, 1989
JOSE B. SARMIENTO
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION &
INSURANCE SYSTEM (National Power Corporation)
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

GOVERNMENT

SERVICE

Facts:
The record shows that the late Flordeliza Sarmiento was employed by the National Power
Corporation in Quezon City as accounting clerk in May 1974. At the time of her death on August 12, 1981
she was manager of the budget division. History of the deceased's illness showed that symptoms
manifested as early as April 1980 as a small wound over the external auditory canal and mass over the
martoid region. Biopsy of the mass revealed cancer known as "differentiated squamous cell carcinoma."
The employee sought treatment in various hospitals, namely, Veterans Memorial Hospital, United Doctors
Medical Hospital and Makati Medical Center. In March 1981, a soft tissue mass emerged on her left
upper cheek as a result of which her lips became deformed and she was unable to close her left eye. She
continued treatment and her last treatment at the Capitol Medical Center on July 12, 1 981 was due to her
difficulty of swallowing food and her general debility. On August 12, 1981, she succumbed to
cardiorespiratory arrest due to parotid carcinoma. She was 40 years old.
Believing that the deceased's fatal illness having been contracted by her during employment was serviceconnected, appellant herein filed a claim for death benefits under Presidential Decree No. 626, as
amended. On September 9, 1982, the GSIS, through its Medical Services Center, denied the claim. It
was pointed out that parotid carcinoma is "Malignant tumor of the parotid gland (salivary gland)" and that
its development was not caused by employment and employment conditions. Dissatisfied with the
respondent System's decision of denial, claimant wrote a letter dated October 8, 1982 to the GSIS
requesting that the records of the claim be elevated to the Employees' Compensation Commission for
review pursuant to the law and the Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation.
On August 25, 1983, the respondent Commission affirmed the GSIS' decision. It found that the
deceased's death causation by parotid carcinoma is not compensable because she did not contract nor
suffer from the same by reason of her work but by reason of embryonic rests and epithelial growth.
Issue:
Whether the surviving spouse of Flordeliza Sarmiento is entitled to the death benefits herein in
question with the GSIS?
Held:
We find these allegations as mere conjectures. As with other kinds of cancer, the cause and
nature of parotid carcinoma is still not known. A medical authority, however, declares that:
SALIVARY GLANDS —
Painless swelling of the parotid glands is often noted in hepatic cirrhosis in sarcoidis, in mumps, following
abdominal surgery, or associated with neoplasm or infections. The common factors may be dehydration
and inattention to oral hygiene. The latter promotes the growth of large numbers of bacteria which, in the
absence of sufficient salivary flow, ascend from the mouth into the duct of a gland. Another cause of a

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 325

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
painful salivary gland is sialolithiasis (salivary duct stone). The submandibular glands are most commonly
affected. Pain and swelling associated with eating are characteristic. Saliva promotes retention of artificial
dentures because of its mucin content. Thus, conditions characterized by diminished saliva flow often
adversely affect the ease with which dentures may be worn. Calcium phosphate stone tend to form
because of a high pH and viscosity of the submandibular gland saliva which has a high mucin content.
Stones are removed by manipulation or excision.
Autoimmune sialosis is the Mikulics—Sjogren Syndrome, a unilateral or bilateral enlargement of the
parotid and/or submandibular gland, and often the lacrimal glands. Occasionally painful, it is associated
with xerostomia (dry mouth) due to impaired saliva formation that is most common in older women.
Beriow et al., The Merek Manuel, 14th Edition, pp. 2095-2096).
Another author states the following regarding squamous cell carcinoma:
Moreover, when the salivary gland is almost totally destroyed and replaced by epidermoid cancer it may
be difficult or even impossible to ascribe the origin of the growth to salivary gland tissue. Indeed many
squamous cell carcinomas, especially of the parotid, may be metastatic lesions that develop in lymph
nodes included within the parotid. And it is important to stress that the juxtaparotid and intraparotid lymph
nodes are not merely accumulations of lymphoid tissue but nodes with efferent and afferent lymphatics.
Squamous cell carcinomas of the major salivary glands are generally fixed to the skin and the underlying
tissues and, in the case of the parotid, are often the cause of facial palsy.
Epidermoid cancers grow swiftly and the clinical course is usually rapid. A few tumours, however, have
been present for as long as two years before the patient seeks advice. Some patients remain alive and
asymptomatic after radical surgery, but ordinarily the lesions are highly malignant, infiltrating locally and
metastasizing to the regional nodes Distant metastasis is seldom a prominent clinical feature. In the case
of the submandibular gland the tumor may simulate osteomyelitis of the mandible or an abscess in the
gland itself, and if such lesions are incised a chronic sinus is liable to persist until radical treatment is
undertaken. (Evans and Cruickshank, Epithelial Tumours of the Salivary Glands, Vol. 1, p. 254)
Given the preceding medical evaluations, we affirm the findings of the public respondents which found no
proof that the deceased's working conditions have indeed caused or increased the risk of her contracting
her illness.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The decisions of the Government Service Insurance System
and the Employees' Compensation Commission denying the claim are AFFIRMED.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 326

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Jao, Harris D.
2010-0083
Case Title:
GR NO:
Date:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Ponente:

Maternity Children’s Hospital vs Secretary of Labor
GR NO. 78909
June 30, 1989
MATERNITY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, represented by ANTERA L. DORADO, President
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND THE REGIONAL DlRECTOR OF
LABOR, REGION X
MEDIALDEA, J.

Facts:

Petitioner is a semi-government hospital, managed by the Board of Directors of the Cagayan de
Oro Women's Club and Puericulture Center, headed by Mrs. Antera Dorado, as holdover President. The
hospital derives its finances from the club itself as well as from paying patients, averaging 130 per month.
It is also partly subsidized by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and the Cagayan De Oro City
government.
Petitioner has forty-one (41) employees. Aside from salary and living allowances, the employees are
given food, but the amount spent therefor is deducted from their respective salaries (pp. 77-78, Rollo).
On May 23, 1986, ten (10) employees of the petitioner employed in different capacities/positions filed a
complaint with the Office of the Regional Director of Labor and Employment, Region X, for underpayment
of their salaries and ECOLAS, which was docketed as ROX Case No. CW-71-86.
On June 16, 1986, the Regional Director directed two of his Labor Standard and Welfare Officers to
inspect the records of the petitioner to ascertain the truth of the allegations in the complaints (p.
98, Rollo). Payrolls covering the periods of May, 1974, January, 1985, November, 1985 and May, 1986,
were duly submitted for inspection.
On July 17, 1986, the Labor Standard and Welfare Officers submitted their report confirming that there
was underpayment of wages and ECOLAs of all the employees by the petitioner, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, deficiency on wage and ecola as verified and confirmed
per review of the respondent payrolls and interviews with the complainant workers and all
other information gathered by the team, it is respectfully recommended to the Honorable
Regional Director, this office, that Antera Dorado, President be ORDERED to pay the
amount of SIX HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SIX &
01/100 (P654,756.01), representing underpayment of wages and ecola to the THIRTY
SIX (36) employees of the said hospital as appearing in the attached Annex "F"
worksheets and/or whatever action equitable under the premises. (p. 99, Rollo)
Based on this inspection report and recommendation, the Regional Director issued an Order
dated August 4, 1986, directing the payment of P723,888.58, representing underpayment of
wages and ECOLAs to all the petitioner's employees.
Issue:
Whether or not the Regional Director had jurisdiction over the case and if so, the extent
of coverage of any award that should be forthcoming, arising from his visitorial and

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 327

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code.
Held:

The justification for the award to this group of employees who were not signatories to the
complaint is that the visitorial and enforcement powers given to the Secretary of Labor is relevant to, and
exercisable over establishments, not over the individual members/employees, because what is sought to
be achieved by its exercise is the observance of, and/or compliance by, such firm/establishment with the
labor standards regulations. Necessarily, in case of an award resulting from a violation of labor legislation
by such establishment, the entire members/employees should benefit therefrom. As aptly stated by then
Minister of Labor Augusto S. Sanchez:
. . It would be highly derogatory to the rights of the workers, if after categorically finding
the respondent hospital guilty of underpayment of wages and ECOLAs, we limit the
award to only those who signed the complaint to the exclusion of the majority of the
workers who are similarly situated. Indeed, this would be not only render the enforcement
power of the Minister of Labor and Employment nugatory, but would be the pinnacle of
injustice considering that it would not only discriminate but also deprive them of legislated
benefits.
. . . (pp. 38-39, Rollo).
This view is further bolstered by the provisions of Sec. 6, Rule II of the "Rules on the Disposition of Labor
Standards cases in the Regional Offices" (supra) presently enforced, viz:
SECTION 6. Coverage of complaint inspection. — A complaint inspection shall not be
limited to the specific allegations or violations raised by the complainants/workers but
shall be a thorough inquiry into and verification of the compliance by employer with
existing labor standards and shall cover all workers similarly situated. (Emphasis
supplied)
However, there is no legal justification for the award in favor of those employees who were no longer
connectedwith the hospital at the time the complaint was filed, having resigned therefrom in 1984, viz:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Jean (Joan) Venzon (See Order, p. 33, Rollo)
Rosario Paclijan
Adela Peralta
Mauricio Nagales
Consesa Bautista
Teresita Agcopra
Felix Monleon
Teresita Salvador
Edgar Cataluna; and
10. Raymond Manija ( p.7, Rollo)

The enforcement power of the Regional Director cannot legally be upheld in cases of separated
employees. Article 129 of the Labor Code, cited by petitioner (p. 54, Rollo) is not applicable as said article
is in aid of the enforcement power of the Regional Director; hence, not applicable where the employee
seeking to be paid underpayment of wages is already separated from the service. His claim is purely a
money claim that has to be the subject of arbitration proceedings and therefore within the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 328

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Petitioner has likewise questioned the order dated August 4, 1986 of the Regional Director in that it does
not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which the award is based.
We invite attention to the Minister of Labor's ruling thereon, as follows:
Finally, the respondent hospital assails the order under appeal as null and void because
it does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which the awards were
based. Contrary to the pretensions of the respondent hospital, we have carefully
reviewed the order on appeal and we found that the same contains a brief statement of
the (a) facts of the case; (b) issues involved; (c) applicable laws; (d) conclusions and the
reasons therefor; (e) specific remedy granted (amount awarded). (p. 40, Rollo)
ACCORDINGLY, this petition should be dismissed, as it is hereby DISMISSED, as regards all persons
still employed in the Hospital at the time of the filing of the complaint, but GRANTED as regards those
employees no longer employed at that time.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 329

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Jao, Harris D.
2010-0083
Case Title:
GR NO:
Date:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Ponente:

Philippine Global Communications vs Ricardo de Vera
GR NO. 157214
June 7, 2005
Philippine Global Communications
Ricardo de Vera
GARCIA, J.

Facts:

Petitioner Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (PhilCom), is a corporation engaged in the
business of communication services and allied activities, while respondent Ricardo De Vera is a physician
by profession whom petitioner enlisted to attend to the medical needs of its employees. At the crux of the
controversy is Dr. De Vera’s status vis a vis petitioner when the latter terminated his engagement.
It appears that on 15 May 1981, De Vera, via a letter dated 15 May 1981,3 offered his services to the
petitioner, therein proposing his plan of works required of a practitioner in industrial medicine, The parties
agreed and formalized respondent’s proposal in a document denominated as RETAINERSHIP
CONTRACT 4 which will be for a period of one year subject to renewal, it being made clear therein that
respondent will cover "the retainership the Company previously had with Dr. K. Eulau" and that
respondent’s "retainer fee" will be at P4,000.00 a month. Said contract was renewed yearly. 5 The
retainership arrangement went on from 1981 to 1994 with changes in the retainer’s fee. However, for the
years 1995 and 1996, renewal of the contract was only made verbally.
The turning point in the parties’ relationship surfaced in December 1996 when Philcom, thru a
letter6 bearing on the subject boldly written as "TERMINATION – RETAINERSHIP CONTRACT",
informed De Vera of its decision to discontinue the latter’s "retainer’s contract with the Company effective
at the close of business hours of December 31, 1996" because management has decided that it would be
more practical to provide medical services to its employees through accredited hospitals near the
company premises.
Issue:
Whether an employer-employee relationship exist between petitioner and respondent, the
existence of which is, in itself, a question of fact.
Held:

Respondent takes no issue on the fact that petitioner’s business of telecommunications is not
hazardous in nature. As such, what applies here is the last paragraph of Article 157 which, to stress,
provides that the employer may engage the services of a physician and dentist "on retained basis",
subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe. The successive "retainership"
agreements of the parties definitely hue to the very statutory provision relied upon by respondent.
Deeply embedded in our jurisprudence is the rule that courts may not construe a statute that is free from
doubt. Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says, and courts
have no choice but to see to it that the mandate is obeyed.26 As it is, Article 157 of the Labor Code clearly
and unequivocally allows employers in non-hazardous establishments to engage "on retained basis" the
service of a dentist or physician. Nowhere does the law provide that the physician or dentist so engaged

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 330

therefore. The very phrase that they may be engaged "on retained basis". the petition is GRANTED and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For sure. effective at the close of business hours of 31 December 1996. 28 that execution of the NLRC decision had already been made at the NLRC despite the pendency of the present recourse. however. to their retainership agreement as therein provided. Be that as it may. that even as the contracts entered into by the parties invariably provide for a 60-day notice requirement prior to termination. the record shows.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION thereby becomes a regular employee. so can petitioner put an end. With the recognition of the fact that petitioner consistently engaged the services of respondent on a retainer basis. and this is admitted by both parties. accounts of petitioner had already been garnished and released to respondent despite the previous 29 Status Quo Order issued by this Court. the 60-day notice requirement has become moot and academic if not waived by the respondent himself. revolts against the idea that this engagement gives rise to an employer-employee relationship. WHEREFORE. To all intents and purposes. as shown by their various "retainership contracts". with or 27 without cause. The 21 December 1998 decision of the labor arbiter is REINSTATED. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 331 . the same was not complied with by petitioner when it terminated on 17 December 1996 the verbally-renewed retainership agreement. We note.

her memory. A claim for disability benefits filed by her husband with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) was denied. J. Whether the presumption of compensability is absolutely inapplicable under the present compensation laws when a disease is not listed as occupational disease.. JR. Harris D. RARO vs EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM GR NO. the requirement of proof of any casual link between the ailment and ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 332 . . (103 SCRA 329. By that time. even medical experts have not determined its cause. We ruled as follows: While the presumption of compensability and the theory of aggravation espoused under the Workmen's Compensation Act may have been abandoned under the New Labor Code (the constitutionality of such abrogation may still be challenged).. respondents should adopt a more liberal attitude in deciding claims for compensability especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work connection. About four years later. 2010-0083 Case Title: GR NO: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: ZAIDA G. vision.. RARO Employees Compensation Commission and Government Service Insurance System GUTIERREZ. she sought medical treatment in Manila. Where however. she began suffering from severe and recurrent headaches coupled with blurring of vision.. Thus in the case of 139 SCRA 270 citingCristobal v. it is significant that the liberality of the law in general still subsists. Camarines Norte regional office on March 17. and reasoning power had been lost. 103 SCRA 329. Held: In a case like the present one.. . 1975. 336). and therefore the duty to prove does not exist for it is absurd for the law to require an impossibility. L-58445 April 27. The petitioner was diagnosed at the Makati Medical Center to be suffering from brain tumor. Forced to take sick leaves every now and then. She was then a Mining Recorder in the Bureau. 1989 ZAIDA G.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jao. sense of time. A motion for reconsideration was similarly denied. Facts: The petitioner states that she was in perfect health when employed as a clerk by the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences at its Daet. ECC. As agents charged by the law to implement social justice guaranteed and secured by both 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. the causes of an ailment are unknown to and or undetermined even by medical science. An appeal to the Employees' Compensation Commission resulted in the Commission's affirming the GSIS decision. Issue: Whether brain tumor which causes are unknown but contracted during employment is compensable under the present compensation laws.

Where cause is unknown or cannot be ascertained. In turn respondent should comply with its duty to give him the fullest protection. p. (Ibid. As an employee. We stated: Thus the requirement that the disease was caused or aggravated by the employment or work applies only to an illness where the cause can be determined or proved. he had contributed to the funds of respondent for 34 years until his forced retirement. In the more recent case of Flaviano Nemaria. promulgated October 28. pp. The point is that it is grossly inequitable to require as a condition for an award of compensation that the claimant demonstrate that his ailment – the cause or origin of which is unknown to and undetermined even by medical science – was in fact caused or the risk of contracting the same enhanced by his working conditions. no duty to prove the link exist For certainly. 626 as amended.. (139 SCRA. .. 1987 and following the rule We enunciated in the Mercado case. 1 Petitioner versus Employees' Compensation Commission and Government Service Insurance System (Ministry of Education and Culture). the impossible condition should be deemed as not having been intended and/or imposed. 275-276). specially considering that said claimant is most probably not even conversant with the intricacies of medical science and the claimant invariably bereft of the material resources to employ medical experts to demonstrate the connection between the cause and the disease. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 333 . the law cannot demand an impossibility.. 277). it is my humble opinion that this petition should be GRANTED... Respondents. ... Plainly the condition would be an impossible one.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION the working conditions petitions should be liberalized so that those who have less in life will have more in law . The decision of the respondent Employees Compensation Commission should be SET ASIDE and another should be rendered ordering the respondents to pay the herein petitioner the full amount of compensation under Presidential Decree No. . Considering the liberal character of employment compensation schemes. relief and compensation benefits as guaranteed by law. PREMISES CONSIDERED.

1989. 1986. respectively.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Jao. J: Facts: SEAFDEC – AQD is a department of an international organization. his services shall be terminated at the close of office hours on May 15. are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for having been rendered without jurisdiction. petitioner Lacanilao in his capacity as Chief of SEAFDEC – AQD sent a notice of termination to private respondent informing him that due to the financial constraints being experienced by the department.00 and a monthly allowance of P4. WHEREFORE.000. 1986 and that he is entitled to separation benefits equivalent to one month of his basic salary for every year of service plus other benefits. 86773 February 14. the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center. On April 20. No costs. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 334 . 1983 with a monthly basic salary of P8. Thailand on December 28. Vietnam. Singapore.00. Indonesia. the court in said case explained why it took cognizance of the case. 1988 and January 9. 1975. 1987 a complaint against petitioners for non-payment of separation benefits plus moral damages and attorney’’s fees with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC . Issue: Whether NLRC has jusrisdiction over the said case. organized through an agreement entered into in Bangkok. private respondent Juvenal Lazaga was employed as a Research Associate on a probationary basis by the SEAFDEC – AQD and was appointed Senior External Affairs Officer on January 5. 1992 Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Aquaculture Department National Labor Relations Commission NOCON. Thereafter.000. Thailand. On May 8. the latter filed on March 18. he was appointed to the position of Professional III and designated as Head of External Affairs Office with the same pay and benefits. 1967 by the governments of Malaysia. finding SEAFDEC – AQD to be an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or local agency of the Philippine Government. On the contrary. Held: Respondent NLRC’s citation of the ruling of this court in Lacanilao vs De Leon to justify its assumption of jurisdiction over SEAFDEC is misplaced. the questioned decision and resolution of the NLRC dated July 26. 2010-0083 Case Title: GR NO: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Aquaculture Department vs National Labor Relations Commission and Juvenal Lazaga GR NO. Upon petitioner SEAFDEC AQD’s failure to pay private respondent his separation pay. Harris D. and the Philippines with Japan as the sponsoring country.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 335 . The results of the physical examination did not satisfy the criteria for permanent total disability. Even if Balais had undergone an operation. On March 13. Issue: Whether or not the ailment of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Secondary to Ruptured Aneurysm is considered as a permanent total disability. 1990 at the age of sixtytwo (62) years old. It is possible that an injury which at first was considered to be temporary may later on become permanent or one who suffers a partial disability becomes totally and permanently disabled from the same cause. 1990. She suffered from Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Secondary to Ruptured Aneurysm." Permanent total disability can be the "lack of ability to follow continuously some substantially gainful occupation without serious discomfort or pain and without material injury or danger to life. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: GSIS VS. 117572 Date: January 29. Romero Facts: On December 17.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. However. the GSIS Medical Evaluation and Underwriting Department which evaluated her claim found no basis to alter its findings. Court Of Appeals and Rosa Balais Ponente: J. followed by loss of consciousness. otherwise known as stroke. Rosa Balais suddenly experienced chills." Balais retired at the age of 62 because of her impaired physical condition. The petition is denied and the challenged decision of the Court Of Appeals is affirmed.R. The ruling also stressed out that "disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but on the loss of earning capacity. This shows that her disability is permanent and total. private respondent filed a claim for disability benefits with the GSIS.R. she could not perform her duties well so she was forced to retire early from the government service on March 1. No. 1998 Petitioner: Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Respondents: The Hon. COURT OF APPEALS AND ROSA BALAIS G. No. 1989.: G. Held: A person's disability may not manifest fully at one precise moment in time but rather over a period of time.

R. The rule applies even if that disabled person later dies because of the same cause or related cause. No. Marawi City Ponente: J.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. In October 1982. Permanent total disability means incapacity to perform gainful work which is expected to be permanent. came four and one half years after his retirement caused by work-oriented paralysis arising from cerebrovascular attack. he died of acute Myocardial Infraction. GSIS denied Manuzon’s request stating that her husband's death due to Myocardial Infraction was evaluated not compensable having occurred 4-½ years after his retirement from the service. his retirement no longer established an employer-employee relationship. ECC G. The decision is reversed. The heirs of Mr. Held: Petitioner’s late husband was compelled to retire from the service because of disability that was work-oriented. Manuzon are entitled to the benefits they are claiming. Myocardial Infraction. No.R. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: MANUZON VS. 88573 Date: June 25. The disease was work-oriented because of the nature of his employment as a professor. The Employees Compensation Commission denied petitioner's claim because the cause of death. Mindanao State University (MSU). Manuzon Respondents: Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). otherwise known as paralysis. On June 17. Death benefits must be granted to the primary beneficiaries who became disabled because of causes that are work-oriented. 1987. He had to retire because of paralysis caused by that cardio vascular attack when he was an assistant professor. he was diagnosed with Hemiparesis. He died after his compulsory retirement due to total disability. caused by cardio vascular attack or myocardial infraction. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 336 .: G. Gancayco Facts: Petitioner's late husband started his government service as a national language researcher in December 1957 at the Institute of National Language. Moreover. Petitioner Manuzon requested the GSIS for a continued pension. Later he transferred to the Mindanao State University in Marawi City as an instructor in June 1974. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the death benefits of her late husband. 1990 Petitioner: Consorcia F. He rose to become assistant professor. She was granted additional pension up to January of 1988 only.

when his PTB first became manifest. 1994. SANICO G. Therefore. E. 1991 due to his illness then he filed his claim for compensation benefits on November 9. due to his illness and not when the same first became manifest. Issue: Whether or not respondent’s claim for compensation benefit had already prescribed when he filed his claim. The SSS ruled that under Article 201 of the Labor Code. terminated from employment. Held: Disability should not be understood more on its medical significance but rather on the loss of an employee’s earning capacity. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: G. No. It does not mean absolute helplessness. No. or work of similar nature that he was trained for.R. i. Sanico filed with the Social Security System (SSS) a claim for compensation benefits but SSS denied the claim on the ground of prescription. 1999. the petition is dismissed.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. The prescriptive period for filing compensation claims should be reckoned from the time the employee lost his earning capacity. He worked in as “wood filer” from 1986 until he was separated from employment on December 31. Permanent total disability means disablement of an employee to earn wages in the same kind of work. 1991 due to Pulmonary Tuberculosis (PTB). Kapunan Facts: Respondent Sanico was a former employee of John Gotamco and Sons.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION VS. Accordingly. 134028 December 17.e.. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 337 . Sanico’s employment was terminated on December 31. a claim for compensation shall be given due course only when the same is filed with the System three (3) years for the time the cause of action accrued. the SSS reckoned the threeyear prescriptive period on September 21. 1999 Employees’ Compensation Commission (Social Security System) Edmund Sanico J.R. Sanico’s claim was filed within the three-year prescriptive period under Article 201 of the Labor Code. In Sanico’s case.

which refers to the Bureau of Public Highways. as amended). However. 1989 Petitioner: Rosario Vda. not in BPH. in addition to any other applicable death benefits.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. He was holding his current position as a construction capataz when he died of Cardio-respiratory Arrest due to Cerebrovascular Accident in June 21. The funds of the BPH and the fund of the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas. municipal councilor. THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION G. 1973. Feliciano Facts: Artemio A. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: SUANES VS. petitioner is accordingly relieved of the burden of proving causation between the illness and the employment in view of the legal presumption that said illness arose out of the decedent's employment.' for purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act. filed with the Workmen's Compensation Unit (WCU) a claim for compensation under the applicable provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No.R. medical and hospital bills incurred in connection with the decedent's last illness. The decision is reversed. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 338 . Rosario.: L. Thus. Issue: Whether or not petitioner had a valid claim for death benefits. and a construction capataz of the Bureau of Public Highways (BPH). petitioner designated the Republic of the Philippines as the respondent. It is well settled that. Suanes was a government employee. The petitioner is given reimbursement for the doctors.42808 Date: January 31. From 1933 to 1970. under the Workmen's Compensation Act. BPH controverted the claim because it had been filed against the wrong party. the BPH and the Office of the Provincial Engineer of Batangas are both governmental offices and both are embraced in the term Republic of the Philippines. the surviving spouse of Artemio Suanes. in her Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal. De Suanes Respondents: The Workmen’s Compensation Commission and The Republic of the Philippines (Bureau of Public Highways) Ponente: J. No. are equally government funds. Held: The petitioner's original claim named the BPH as the decedent's employer. Artemio's ailment entered in the course of his employment either with the BPH or the Office of the Batangas Provincial Engineer. Batangas Provincial Office. It should be filed on the Provincial Engineer's Office of the Provincial Government of Batangas. 3428. he served as market collector.

After that. Abril already rendered at least one year of service which makes her a regular employee. she discovered that a certain Vangie Santos had been permanently appointed to her former position. 121071 Date: December 11. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: PHIL. She. (b) project employees or those 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. (PFCCI) from 1982 to 1988 as a Junior Auditor/Field Examiner. No. nevertheless.R. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 339 .: GR. Inc. NLRC G. Federation of Credit Cooperatives. INC. Held: There are three kinds of employees: (a) regular employees or those whose work is necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer. Benedicto Jayoma Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) and Victoria Abril Ponente: J. this entitles her to the security of tenure guaranteed under the Constitution and labor laws. and (c) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees. Therefore. No. She then filed a complaint of illegal dismissal against PFCCI. and Fr. her employment was terminated. She also completed the probationary period which makes her a regular employee and dismissing her is illegal. Romero Facts: Victoria Abril was employed by petitioner Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives. Inc. 1998 Petitioners: Phil. the petition is dismissed. Moreover. accepted the position of Regional Field Officer with a probationary period of six (6) months. VS. Issue: Whether or not respondent Abril is considered as a regular employee and thus entitled to the security of tenure under labor laws.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. She went on leave when she gave birth to a baby girl but upon her return. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES.

The petition is granted. However. 1989 Petitioner: Moises de Leon Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and La Tondeña Ponente: C.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: DE LEON VS. the employment is also considered regular. the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. NLRC G. No.R. Hence. After a service of more than one (1) year. at the Maintenance Section. but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.: G. It can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. de Leon requested that he be included in the payroll of regular workers. No. Held: Petitioner was not a mere casual employee but a regular employee. Fernan Facts: Petitoner de Leon was employed by private respondent La Tondeña Inc. 70705 Date: August 21. 1981. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 340 . on December 11. La Tondeña dismissed de Leon which compelled him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is only a casual worker and not a regular employee.R.J.

Petitioners are then regular employees and not project employees as said by NLRC.” as distinguished from “regular employees. Project employees are those workers hired (1) for a specific project or undertaking. the fact that they were hired and transferred from one project to another made both petitioners nonproject employees who cannot be terminated by reason alone of the completion of the project. Therefore.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M.R. Regalado Facts: Petitioners Isabelo Violeta and Jovito Baltazar were former employees of Dasmariñas Industrial and Steelworks Corporation (DISC). They were hired from one project to another from 1980 to 1992. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: VIOLETA VS. petitioners filed two separate complaints for illegal dismissal DISC.R.” the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project. Upon their separation. and (2) the completion or termination of such project or undertaking has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee.” is whether or not the “project employees” were assigned to carry out a “specific project or undertaking. NLRC G. 1997 Petitioners: Isabelo Violeta and Jovito Baltazar Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission and Dasmariñas Industrial and Steelworks Corporation Ponente: J. Held: Although the appointment contracts of petitioners specified fixed terms or periods of employment. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 341 . The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as ”project employees. Contending that they are already regular employees who cannot be dismissed on the ground of completion of the particular project where they are engaged.: G. the petition is granted. 119523 Date: October 10. Issue: Whether or not petitioners are only casual workers and not regular employees. Petitioners’ dismissal could not be justified by the completion of their items of work. No. No. petitioners executed a quitclaim wherein they declared that they have no claim against DISC.

Held: There are two kinds of regular employees: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. 122327 August 19. Romares National Labor Relations Commission and PILMICO Foods Corporation J. No. NLRC G. such employee is deemed a regular employee and is entitled to security of tenure notwithstanding the contrary provisions of his contract of employment.: Date: Petitioner: Respondents: Ponente: ROMARES VS. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is only a casual worker and not a regular employee. the petition is granted. Where an employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. and sometimes operating company equipment. 1998 Artemio J. with respect to the activity in which they are employed. he was illegally dismissed. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 342 . He performed the same functions at work. terminated and rehired again for three times in a span of more than three (3) years from September 1989 to January 1983.R. He was hired. particularly the painting of company buildings. maintenance chores.R. whether continuous or broken. Martinez Facts: Petitoner Romares worked at PILMICO’s Maintenance/Projects/Engineering Department performing maintenance work. Therefore. However. and (2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: G. No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M.

Pedro Castillo Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Philippine Fruit and Vegetables Workers Union. drivers.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. Private respondent alleged that many of its complaining members started working for PFVII in January or February 1983 until their dismissal on different dates in 1985. Inc. with respect to the activity in which he is employed. except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project. 1999 Petitioners: Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Industries. Held: Regular and Casual Employment. Issue: Whether or not respondents are seasonal employees whose employments ceased during the offseason due to no work and not due to illegal dismissal.: G. for and in behalf of 127 of its members. INC. The work of complainants as seeders. or b) has rendered at least one year of service. On September 5. Petitioners further argue that PFVII operates on a seasonal basis and the complainants who are members of respondent union are seasonal workers because they work only during the period that the company is in operation. mechanics and office personnel is without doubt necessary in the usual business of a food processing company like petitioner PFVII. and Mr. an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employers. provided. truck helpers. The severance of complainants' employment from petitioner corporation was a necessary consequence of the nature of seasonal employment. (PFVII) is a government-owned and controlled corporation engaged in the manufacture and processing of fruit and vegetable purees for export. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph.Tupas Local Chapter Ponente: J. shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists.R. Kapunan Facts: Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Industries. sorters.R. depending on the availability of supply and ceases operation in June. 1988 herein private respondent Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Workers Union-Tupas Local Chapter. operators. and since complainants are seasonal workers as defined by the Labor Code. janitors.The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties. VS. Its operation starts only in February and ceases by the end of the same month when the supply is consumed. An employment shall be deemed regular where the employee: a) has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal with damages against petitioner corporation. NLRC G. 1987 and 1988. No. 122122 Date: July 20. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 343 . Inc. they cannot invoke any benefit. Petitioner Pedro Castillo is the former President and General Manager of petitioner PFVII. No. that. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: PHILIPPINE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES. It then resumes operations at the end of April or early May. any employee who has rendered at least one year of service whether such service is continuous or broken. slicers. 1986. whether such service is continuous or broken.

the petition is reversed with respect to the union members. Therefore. such as manufacturing and marketing are not seasonal. The fact is that large-scale food processing companies such as petitioner company continue to operate and do business throughout the year even if the availability of fruits and vegetables is seasonal.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION While it may be true that some phases of petitioner company's processing operations is dependent on the supply of fruits for a particular season. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 344 . the other equally important aspects of its business. who did not adduce evidence in support of their claims.

R.. even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent. countered that the complainants were all contractual. if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year. Rodrigo Prado. Cesar Castillo. Rommel Naadat. INC. Mario Plaquia. It manufactures its own building materials.R. Nerio Valenzuela. Salvador Urbanozo..LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. No. Salvador Urbanozo. and all kinds of aluminum and concrete products. 123769 Date: December 22. No. is engaged in the construction business. Mario Plaquia. Ernesto Mateo. Hence. five (5) days incentive leave pay despite having rendered services for more than a year. Rommel Naadat. Issue: Whether or not respondents are contractual or project employees. vacation/sick leave pay and 13th month pay. Their employment contracts were renewed every three (3) months. and Ponciano del Rosario Petitioner E. Cesar Castillo. 1999 Petitioner: E. Ganzon Inc. premium pay for holiday and rest day. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. legal holiday pay. and they were not given overtime pay. Facts: E. Artemio Agosto. Determining a regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. Ganzon Inc. Ganzon. NLRC G. except where the 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. Held: Article 280 of the Labor Code states that written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Valenzuela. Also. project. insurance premiums were deducted from their salaries without their consent. Inc.: G. the employment is also considered regular. Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. VS. Ernesto Mateo. Artemio Agosto. and Ponciano del Rosario Ponente: Bellosillo. GANZON. but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 345 . Rene Permaran. their services would be terminated. as borne by their respective employment contracts. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: E. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. temporary or casual employees as evidenced by their employment contracts expressly providing that the acceptance of their services was based on the need for their skill such that upon completion of the project and/or when reduction of the workforce was necessary. Respondents said that during the period of their employment from 1984 to 1991. Rodrigo Prado. J.

inclusive of allowances. respondents are declared regular employees of E. Inc. They are likewise declared to have been illegally dismissed. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 346 . The petitioner is ordered to reinstate them without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to grant them full back wages. and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time compensation was withheld from them up to actual reinstatement. Ganzon.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Therefore.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. 1986.” Therefore. Manila. compensable. the passenger jeepney he was riding on turned turtle due to the slippery road. especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work connection to the accident.R. Facts: Petitioner Lazo is a security guard of the Central Bank of the Philippines assigned to its main office in Malate.R. On June 18. As embodied in Article 4 of the New Labor Code which states that “all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor. he then sustained injuries. the decision appealed from is reversed and set aside. regular homeward route. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 347 . He did not deviate from his usual. 78617 Date: June 18. He filed a claim for disability benefits but GSIS denied for the reason that he was not at his work place performing his duties when the incident occurred. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION G. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: LAZO VS. J. No.: G. No. 1986. His regular tour of duty is from 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon to 10:00 o'clock in the evening. Issue: Whether or not the injuries he sustained due to the vehicular accident should be construed as "arising out of or in the course of employment" and thus. Held: The petitioner was asked to go on overtime since the reliever did not arrive. On his way home. The Employees Compensation Commission should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of the employee in deciding claims for compensability. he rendered an overtime duty from 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon up to 5:00 o'clock in the morning of June 19. 1990 Petitioner: Salvador Lazo Respondents: Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC) and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Ponente: Padilla.

NLRC G. 1991 Petitioner: Intertrod Maritime Inc. When he later signified his intention of continuing his work. Issue: Whether or not respondent de la Cruz’s termination is illegal. the petition is granted. If the employee later changes his mind. Four days after private respondent's request for relief. M/T "AFAMIS". Once an employee resigns and his resignation is accepted. he must ask for approval of the withdrawal of his resignation from his employer. respondent de la Cruz signed a shipboard employment contract with petitioners Troodos Shipping Company and Intertrod Maritime. although the private respondent was being required to serve the thirty (30) days notice provided in the contract.: G. the Master "signed him off".R. Therefore." The Master of the ship approved his request but him respondent that repatriation expenses were for his account and that he had to give thirty (30) days notice in view of the Clause 5 of the employment contract so that a replacement for him could be arranged. No.: Date: MANILA BROADCASTING CO. On August 26. The mere fact that they did not accept such withdrawal did not constitute illegal dismissal for acceptance of the withdrawal of the resignation was the petitioners' sole prerogative. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: G.R. The Master of the ship forced him to step out in Egypt despite his protests and he had no other recourse but to return to the Philippines at his own expense. Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Ernesto de la Cruz Ponente: J. to serve as Third Engineer and boarded the sister vessel. while the M/T "Afamis" was at Port Pylos. 1998 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 348 . his resignation was already approved. Held: Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who "finds himself in a situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service. Manginsay 2011-0043 Case title: INTERTROD MARITIME INC. In this case. No. it may not be withdrawn without the consent of the employer. No. 1982. Petitioners said that the contract was cut short because of private respondent's own request for relief. It will then be up to the employer to determine whether or not his service would be continued. it was proper that he should pay for his repatriation expenses in accordance with the provisions of their employment contract. it was already up to the petitioners to accept his withdrawal of his resignation. Inc. private respondent requested for relief. VS." Once resignation is accepted. Greece. VS. NLRC G. 121975 August 20. as if he were re-applying for the job. Padilla Facts: On May 10.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Maranatha M. Maranatha M. the Master had already accepted the resignation and. he has no other choice but to disassociate himself from his employment. and Troodos Shipping Co. No. due to a "personal reason. he no longer has any right to the job.R.R. 81087 Date: June 19. 1982.

6646 requires radio commentators who file certificates of candidacy to go on leave during the campaign period. Respondent believed in good faith that notwithstanding the company policy in question. He applied for leave of absence for 50 days. and Samuel L. it must be shown that his conduct was willful and that the order violated (1) is reasonable and lawful. He tried to return to work. private respondent was not required to take such leave as production supervisor hence he could not have taken a leave for said position. he had been in the company for six (6) years. Considering that at the time of his dismissal. 1992 in order to “run for Board Member” in Ilocos Norte under the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) but lost. he was not aware of the company policy considering employees who file certificates of candidacy for elective public office as resigned. Held: Under Art. from March 24 to May 13. The policy is also not written. Mendoza Facts: Respondent Bangloy was a production supervisor and a radio commentator of the DZJC-AM radio station in Laoag City. Ricardo Olairez. 2) A maximum of 30 days only is allowed for leave. Hon. dismissal would be too severe. an employee may be dismissed for willful disobedience of the lawful orders of his employer in connection with his work. 6646 which allows leave of absence only from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy until the day of the election. The radio station is owned by petitioner Manila Broadcasting Company. Bangloy Ponente: J. He was later informed that he could not be re-employed because: 1) there is a company policy considering any employee who runs for public office resigned. 282(a) of the Labor Code. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 349 . No. Therefore. but was not allowed by petitioner on the ground that his employment had been terminated. No. To justify the dismissal of an employee on this ground. he could go on leave without resigning in order to run for a seat in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.A.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Petitioner: Manila Broadcasting Company Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission. Suspension for one month would be a sufficient penalty for his unauthorized absences. and (3) pertains to the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge. 3) Although R. Respondent claims that when he filed his application for leave. the decision is affirmed. Issue: Whether or not respondent Bangloy was illegally and unjustly dismissed.A. (2) is known to the employee. 4) The private respondent’s leave was not in accordance with R.

his application was denied for the grounds that his ailment was not an occupational disease. ISSUE:  Whether or not the petitioner’s disability is permanent total? HELD: YES. representing his permanent partial disability benefits for the period from October 15. the GSIS delivered to the petitioner a check in the amount of P l. FACTS: Petitioner Abaya retired as a principal teacher at the age of 60 on after serving the government in various capacities for 38 and a half years. Sec.25. Upon appeal to the ECC it was sent back to the GSIS for reception of additional evidence showing that the applicant's illness was work-connected. 1989 Petitioner: Evaristo Abaya Jr. hence this petition. The appealed decision is reversed. 19. 2. After his motion for reconsideration was denied. which this time sustained the GSIS. Respondent: Employees’ Compensation Commission Ponente: Cruz. appliance and supplies and permanent total disability benefits under basis of cardiovascular disease and cerebral encephalopathy secondary to hypertension. 2011-0038 ABAYA VS ECC GR No: L-64255 Date: Aug.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. 2 (b) of Rule VII of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation which is Permanent Total Disability. (c) A disability is partial permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his body. Rosalie M. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 350 . J. except as otherwise provided in Rule X of these Rules. In the case. 2 Rule VII of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation states that: Sec.218. Disability—(a) A total disability is temporary if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period not exceeding 120 days.1975. the petitioner opted to retire when he was only 60 years of age although he was entitled to continue during good behavior for five more years. However. (b) A disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules. Thereafter. It indicates that he was no longer able to cope with his work because of his illness and therefore falling under the category of Sec. to March 1976. the petitioner appealed once again to the ECC. He applied with GSIS for medical services. He was then referred to the Citizens Legal Assistance Office.

The petitioners invoked Article 280 of the Labor Code arguing that they are “regular” employees due to the reason that their jobs were necessary and essential to NSC's business and that they had rendered services for 6 years already. Both parties appealed the decision. Alan G.. with 13 others. 2011-0038 ALU – TUCP VS. Eduard H. JR. HELD: YES. Russsell Gacus. Darrell Lee Eltagonde. 1994 Petitioner: ALU-TUCP. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided. regularization and monetary benefits. Jose G. NLRC GR No: 109902 Date: August 2. Fookson. Osias Dandasan. Article 280 of the Labor Code states that: Regular and Casual Employment — The provisions of the written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties. Eusebio Marin Jr. Romeo R. It is said that those in such classification shall continue their employment as such for as long as the project exists and who shall be entitled to the salary of a regular employee. whether such service is continuous or broken. shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists. Respondent: NLRC and National Steel Corporation Ponente: Feliciano. ISSUE:  Whether or not the petitioners are project employees. FACTS: Petitioners were employed by respondent NSC in connection with its Five Year Expansion Program for varying lengths of time when they were separated from NSC's service. Jerry Bontilao. any employee who has rendered at least one year service. Representing Members: Alan Barinque. and Gerry Fetalvero. Barinque.. the petitioners’ service to NSC of more than six years should qualify them as regular employees are without legal basis. That. and employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Bonifacio Mejos. Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. Also. The simple fact that the employment of petitioners as project employees had gone beyond one year does not detract from their status as project employees. There was nothing in the facts to prove that the petitioners were hired for other purposes. J. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 351 . which was later affirmed with modifications by the NLRC. Edgar S. The Labor Arbiter declared the petitioners as regular project employees. Bontuyan.. Leonido Echavez. Engr. Rosalie M. Sarona. except where the 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. Garguena Jr. They filed complaints at NLRC for unfair labor practice. namely: Engr. The component projects embraced in the Five Year Expansion Program were different from the regular business of NSC.

Cebu Marine Beach Resort started operations with the recruitment of its employees including petitioners Rodriguez. Manulito Villegas. 143252 Date: Oct. traditions. subject to the deduction of their earnings from other sources during the pendency of the appeal. On June 28. Villegas and Igot and became fully operational on March 1990. 1995. iron trays. fire hoses and other things at them. Igot Ponente: Sandoval-Guttierez. NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters Decision. but was denied. prohibition and injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. the NLRC issued a Resolution declaring that the back wages shall correspond only to the period from May 24. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 352 . 1993 (when they were ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter). floor maps. The former reacted by shouting at them to go home and never to report back to work. Respondents staged a walk-out as a sign of protest and gathered in front of the resort. Tsuyoshi Sasaki Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission. Ofelia Perez. On February 28. The respondents had to undergo a special training in Japanese customs. 1990 (the date of their dismissal) until March 23. Hence. 1990. 1995. On March 22. the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming with modification the Decision and Resolution of the NLRC that the back wages should be computed from the date of the dismissal of private respondents until the finality of this Decision without deduction from earnings during the pendency of the appeal and the award of separation pay must be equivalent to one-half months’ salary for every year of service commencing likewise on the date of the dismissal of private respondents until the finality of this Decision. as well as hotel and resort services. On May 24. as well as attorney’s fees. Ric Rodrigo Rodriguez. 1990 up to their actual reinstatement or in lieu thereof. Sasaki suddenly scolded respondents and hurled brooms. 1990. FACTS: On January 1990. the payment of their respective separation pay from May 24. a petition for review on certiorari was done.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision date March 23. and discipline. On November 5. Lorna G. 1993 dismissing respondents’ complaint but directing them to immediately report back to work. the company through its acting general manager Pelaez sent letters to respondents requiring them to explain why they should not be terminated from employment on the grounds of abandonment of work and failure to qualify with the standards for probationary employees. 1999. Rosalie M. On May 28. Thus the employees filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch at Cebu City a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against petitioners. declaring that the respondents were dismissed illegally and ordering their reinstatement with payment of full back wages from May 24. petitioners filed with this Court a petition for certiorari. 1990 up to the date they were supposed to be reinstated. 2003 Petitioner: Cebu Marine Beach Resort. J. This special training was supervised by petitioner Sasaki. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. 23. 2011-0038 CEBU MARINE BEACH RESORT VS NLRC GR No. 1994.

the probationer.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ISSUE:  Whether or not the respondents were illegally dismissed from employment by petitioner company? HELD: NO. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 353 . In the case. unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. on the other hand. While the employer observes the fitness. propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment. Article 282 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code states that Probationary employment shall not exceed six months from the date the employee started working. 1999 and April 18. 2000 are hereby affirmed with modification. assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated November 5. petitioners terminated respondents’ probationary employment on the grounds of persistent abandonment despite being asked to explain why they should not be terminated and failure to qualify for the positions for which they were employed. seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment which obviously were made known to him. Thus. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. The services of an employee who has been engaged in a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement.

J.750. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. the employer was well within his rights to sever the employer-employee relationship. 1997. and Llanto. This meant that he was terminable anytime. The NLRC dismissed an appeal dated May 13. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards.900. On July 9. the NLRC partially granted the motion for reconsideration and modified its previous resolution ordering respondent to pay de la Cruz P23. 1996. Jr. unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. De la Cruz filed a motion for reconsideration of the above resolution but the same was denied by the NLRC on November 19. thus still being considered as under probationary employment. FACTS: On May 27. As a probationary employee. Dacay. 2000. etc. 11. he enjoyed only temporary employment status. made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. 1999. Shemberg Marketing Corporation. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on September 8. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. 1998. back wages and unpaid wages? HELD: NO. 13th month pay and damages against Shemberg. Rosalie M. non-payment of salary. Ernesto Dacay Jr. The only reason De la Cruz was told by HR manager Llanto was that it had something to do with the drop in the company’s sales and further attempts to negotiate were not entertained. De la Cruz elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari but it was dismissed for lack of merit. Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission. Ponente: Corona. Other claims and the cases against respondents Dacay. The employer could well decide he no longer needed the probationary employee’s services or his performance fell short of expectations. Jr. Article 281 of the Labor Code expresses that Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 354 . was hired by Shemberg Marketing Corporation as senior sales manager. the management decided to terminate his services. On August 25. 2011-0038 DE LA CRUZ JR VS NLRC GR No: 145417 Date: Dec. Petition was dismissed for lack of merit. Shemberg answered by explaining that De la Cruz was terminated for his failure to meet the required company standards and for loss of trust and confidence. petitioner was only employed for 4 months. and Llanto are dismissed for lack of merit. 1999. ISSUE:  Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed and thus should be awarded his separation pay. In the case. back wages and unpaid wages totaling P438. the labor arbiter ruled that de la Cruz was illegally dismissed and granted his claim for separation pay. De la Cruz Jr. On September 14. permanent employment not having been attained in the meantime. 2003 Petitioner: Florencio M. back wages. As long as the termination was made before the expiration of the six-month probationary period. 1996.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. petitioner de la Cruz Jr.

1992 a complaint for illegal dismissal. with the prerequisites necessary for the acquisition of permanent status. ISSUE:  Whether or not Escorpizo is still entitled to security of tenure? HELD: NO. Escorpizo passed the PBET. Petition was dismissed. 1991 when the university informed Escorpizo that her employment was being terminated at the end of the school semester for failure to pass the professional board examination for teachers (PBET). Rosalie M. On June 22. No vested right to a permanent appointment had as yet accrued in her favor since she had not yet complied. National Labor Relations Commission Ponente: Quisumbing. On June 8. But on June 15. the university no longer renewed her contract of employment on the ground that she failed to qualify as a regular teacher. University of Baguio Faculty Education Workers Union Respondent: University of Baguio and Virgilio Bautista. 1993. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 355 . It was on March 18. Escorpizo failed again on the subsequent PBET and thus was not included in the list of those who will teach on the next school year. 1992. 121962 Date: Apr. the labor arbiter ruled that respondent university had a permissible reason in not renewing the employment contract but the labor official ordered the reinstatement of Escorpizo. she was allowed to teach the next school year. As her appeal to be given a second chance was considered. 1992. during her probation. J. She filed on July 16. Escorpizo was entitled to security of tenure during the period of her probation but such protection ended the moment her employment contract expired at the close of school year 1991-1992 and she was not extended a new appointment. An instant petition imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent in affirming the decision of the labor arbiter is now done by the petitioner. Her continued employment was conditioned on her passing the PBET. made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. payment of back wages and reinstatement against the university. Article 281 of the Labor Code expresses that the services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. 1989. 30. FACTS: On June 13. 2011-0038 ESCORPIZO VS UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO GR No. petitioner Escorpizo was hired by University of Baguio as a high school teacher. 1999 Petitioner: Esperanza C. There was only an expiration of contract. Escorpizo.

1980 in the sum of P174. unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. They claimed that Balicena is only a probationary employee but the Regional Director and Minister of Labor ruled in favor of Balicena. 28 he resigned from his position in his previous workplace. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 356 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. 1984 Petitioner: Grand Motor Parts Corporation Respondent: The Minister of Labor. But since he was not yet sure of his status in the petitioner corporation. if he was indeed appointed as regular and permanent then he would have resigned immediately from his previous company. 1980 produced delinquent accounts amounting to P18. Belicena in violation of company policy and without clearance from the head office in Cebu. 282 of the Labor Code states that: Probationary Employment. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. extended personal accounts in favor of 15 persons which as of November.77. 2011-0038 PHILIPPINE GRAND MOTOR PARTS CORP. as compared with the sales for the month of May. He started working for the petitioner company on April 1 and it was only on Apr. he resigned on a later date. Therefore. After 4 months he was terminated and several allegations were made against the petitioner such as failure to submit promptly the monthly Income and Loss Statement. There was no written proof of Belicena’s employment as regular Branch Manager. Petition was granted. Philippine Grand Motors Corporation and Warner. the Comparative Performance Report dated 7/8/1980 on the operation of the Iloilo Branch for the month of June and May. Barnes.80. During the period of his previous work he was induced to apply for the position of Branch Manager since they were scouting for one who is a CPA. Art. Also.697. Barnes & Co were engaged in different nature of business so it was needed for respondent to undergo a probationary period to test his skills and qualifications. He assumed his work as of April 1 but resigned from his previous company on April 28. The Regional Director. 1980. Ministry of Labor Region VI.41 for June. the Cash Sales of the Iloilo Branch went down to P91. Ponente: Guerrero.318. and Narciso Belicena Jr. J. 1980. ISSUE:  Whether or not private respondent is a probationary employee? HELD: YES. — Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working. FACTS: Respondent Belicena was the Branch Manager of petitioner Philippine Grand Motor Parts Corporation’s Iloilo Branch. Comparative Projections & Actual Sales Report.435. Rosalie M. and Belicena claimed lack of knowledge of the vehicular accident caused by a subordinate and failed to provide prompt administrative disciplinary action against the erring employee. VS MINISTER OF LABOR GR No: L-58958 Date: July 16. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. & Co. Previously he was the Finance Officer of Warner.

exemplary and moral damages. An order petitioner to pay private respondent her salary for the unexpired three-month portion of her six-month probationary employment when she was validly terminated during her probationary employment would be oppressive on the part of the employer. 1983. J. Galang was informed orally and in writing that her services were being terminated for her failure to meet the th prescribed standards of petitioner. Bernadette Galang was accepted as a probationary cultural orientation teacher by petitioner International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC). 2011-0038 INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION VS NLRC GR No. ISSUE:  Whether or not private respondent is entitled to the award of salary for the unexpired three-month portion of the probationary period? HELD: NO. On August 22. Three months after. FACTS: On January 24. 72222 Date: Jan 30. Complaints were dismissed on October 8. The services of an employee who has been engaged in a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. unfair labor practice and unpaid wages against ICMC and hoping for reinstatement with back wages. The proportionate amount of her 13 month pay and the equivalent of her two week pay were received by her father on her behalf since she became ill during that period. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. Petition was thus granted. 1983 but it was ordered that ICMC pay Galang the sum of P6000 as payment for the last three (3) months of the agreed employment period pursuant to her verbal contract of employment. the NLRC sustained the decision of the Labor Arbiter and thus dismissed both appeals for lack of merit. 1989 Petitioner: International Catholic Migration Commission Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission and Bernadette Galang Ponente: Fernan. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 357 . 1983. Rosalie M. unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. 1985.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. Failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards of the employer is a just cause for terminating a probationary employee specifically recognized under Article 282 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code which states that Probationary employment shall not exceed six months from the date the employee started working. Both ICMC and Galang appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission. On August 22.

PNOC Energy Development Corporation Ponente: Bellosillo. except where the employment has been fixed . He attempted to go back to work but was prevented by security guards from entering the company premises. as distinguished from regular employees. Article 280 of the Labor Code states that in Regular and casual employment The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties. It was on October 1993 when Kiamco received a Memorandum from the administration department demanding an explanation from him on certain infractions he allegedly committed such as misconduct. 1992 private respondent PNOC hired petitioner Kiamco as a project employee in its Geothermal Agro-Industrial Plant Project. another Memorandum was sent placing him under preventive suspension pending further investigation. Philippine National Oil Company. Rosalie M. is whether or not the project employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking. 2011-0038 KIAMCO VS NLRC GR No: 129449 Date: Dec 11. NLRC it is stated that the principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as project employees. non-compliance of admin reporting procedure on accidents. Kiamco Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission. 1996 reversed the Labor Arbiter. A few days later. J. ISSUE:  Whether or not the petitioner is a regular employee and not a project employee? HELD: NO. He was re-hired after two more periods. FACTS: On July 1. project employees are those workers hired (1) for a specific project or undertaking. It was dismissed on June 30. an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. 1994 Kiamco filed before the NLRC a complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal against the PNOC. 1994 private respondent PNOC-EDC reported to the Department of Labor and Employment that petitioner Kiamco was terminated on November 1 1993 due to the expiration of his employment contract and the abolition of his position. and unauthorized use of company vehicles. AWOL. The contract stated that he was being hired by the company as a technician for a period of five months or up to the completion of the project. On May 27. As defined. 1995 by the Labor Arbiter for lack of merit. No investigation however was ever conducted. On April 25.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 service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project. and (2) the ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 358 . Also in Violeta v.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. 1998 Petitioner: Cisell A. Kiamco appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to public respondent NLRC which on September 27.

Earlier decision is thus modified and petitioner is reinstated to former position. the private respondents would have in their possession the necessary documents and proof to show that the project had already been terminated. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 359 . the argument that petitioner could no longer be reinstated since he failed to substantiate the existence of the project is untenable.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION completion or termination of such project or undertaking has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee. The three (3) Contracts of Employment entered into by Kiamco clearly established that he was a project employee because (a) he was specifically assigned to work for a particular project. Being the employer. The burden of proving that petitioner Kiamco is not entitled to reinstatement rests on private respondent corporations. and (b) the termination and the completion of the project or undertaking was determined and stipulated in the contract at the time of his employment. which was the Geothermal Agro-Industrial Demonstration Plant Project of private respondents. However. Kiamco was correctly labeled by the NLRC as a project employee.

was reversed on appeal by the Fourth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) of Cebu City. NLRC RAB VIII dismissed the complaints lodged before but however granted each employee a separation pay of P6. Sr. Ernesto Bagatsolon.. from July 1983 to July 1990 (d) Ernesto Bagatsolon leadman/checker. surveyor/foreman. from June 1982 to October 1990 (e) Salvador Babon. instrument man. Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla.5. They were also required to explain why their services should not be terminated for violating company rules and warned that failure to satisfactorily explain would be construed as disinterest in continued employment with the company. The contracts expressly described the construction workers as project employees. from January 1979 to October 1990 (g) Cipriano Bernales. road grader operator. Florencio Gomez. Sr. FACTS: Private complainants were hired for various periods by petitioner as follows: (a) Roberto Labendia. clerk/timekeeper/paymaster. from August 1971 to July 1990 (k) Roque Morillo. and Roque Morillo Ponente: Bellosillo. Rosalie M. payloader operator. welder. Labendia. tireman. dump truck driver. from 1971 to 17 October 1990 (b) Narciso Adan. the company ordered the withholding of the salary of any employee who refused to sign.00 computed at one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service. Jr. Mario O. Narciso Adan. The decision of Labor Arbiter Gabino A.. Paterno Bisnar. uniformly rounded at five (5) years. from October 1981 to November 1990 (c) Florencio Gomez. 1997 Petitioner: Tomas Lao Construction. Q. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 360 . Sr. Cipriano Bernales. from August 1983 to October 1990 On 1989 Andres Lao. Velasquez. J. Sr. To ensure compliance with the directive. from August 1974 to October 1990 (I) Leo Surigao. Angel Mabulay. Salvado Babob. company watchman. 2011-0038 LAO CONSTRUCTION VS NLRC GR No: 116781 Date: Sept. LVM Construction Corporation.. Thomas and James Developers (Phil.) Inc. general construction foreman. from February 1980 to November 1990 (h) Angel Mabulay. from March 1975 to January 1978 (J) Mario Labendia. Roberto Labendia.435. Managing Director of LVM and President issued a memorandum requiring all workers and company personnel to sign employment contract forms and clearances which were issued on 1 July 1989 but antedated 10 January 1989. from June 1982 to October 1990 (f) Paterno Bisnar.. Leo Surigao.

the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and considered regular employees. the duration and scope of which are specified at the time the employees are engaged for the project. Thus petition was denied. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable times. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 361 . but which is distinct and separate and identifiable as such from the undertakings of the company. Project in the realm of business and industry refers to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of employer. The court held that where the employment of project employees is extended long after the supposed project has been finished. In the case the workers were initially hired for specific projects or undertakings of the company and hence can be classified as project employees. But the repeated re-hiring and the continuing need for their services over a long span of time have undeniably made them regular employees. The principal test in determining whether particular employees are project employees distinguished from regular employees is whether the project employees are assigned to carry out specific project or undertaking.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ISSUE:  Whether or not respondents were only project employees thus not entitled to security of tenure? HELD: NO.

uncertainties. 280 of the Labor Code? HELD: YES. According to them. Bernard Bendanillo. tinsmith. 2011-0038 MAGCALAS VS NLRC GR No. Ponente: Panganiban. Norbie Lopena. Porspero Marinda. 13. It is a well-entrenched doctrine that in illegal dismissal cases. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 362 . ambiguities and insufficiencies should be resolved in favor of labor. trades helper to general clerk from a range of 1 ½ years to 8 years. The employees now claim that they were illegally dismissed. 1988. Alfredo Santos. The Court reiterates the rule that all doubts. On August 30. all were dismissed without prior notice and that their dismissals were effected for no other cause than their persistent demands for payment of money claims. Edmundo Guzman. Rosalie M. The respondents interposed the defense of contract/project employment. Juanito de Leon. The two exceptions following the general description of regular employees refer to either project or seasonal employees. Genito Dalmero. This burden was not discharged in the present case. 100333 Date: Mar. Ciriaco Reyes. Regular employees cannot at the same time be project employee since Article 280 of the Labor Code states that regular employees are those whose work is necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer. J. the employment of the complainants expired as they had no more work to do. Petition was granted. A mere provision in the CBA recognizing contract employment does not sufficiently establish that petitioners were ipso facto contractual or project employees. the employer has the burden of proof. FACTS: The complainants were all regular employees of Koppel Inc. Epifanio Omega. and Cesar Ledesma Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. Antonio Llagas. with the completion of their task on August 31. Virgilio Campos. Celso Gamalo. Elmer Baleta. (engaged in the business of installing air conditioning and refrigeration equipment) having rendered continuous services in various capacities ranging from lead man. Shaldy Autencio. ISSUE:  Whether or not petitioners were regular workers under the contemplation of Art. Benedicto Dagcutan. Ismale Alonzo. Koppel Inc. 1988 in their respective installation projects. 1997 Petitioner: Hilario Magcalas.

ISSUE:  Whether or not respondent has become a regular employee entitled to security of tenure guaranteed under the Constitution and labor laws HELD: YES. She then accepted the position of Regional Field Officer as evidenced by a contract which stipulated that her employment status shall be probationary for a period of six months. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code. unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. Fr. Rosalie M. Federation of Credit Cooperatives Inc. or to an equivalent position if such is no longer feasible. VS NLRC GR No: 121071 Date: Dec 11. as amended. the said decision was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) stating that respondents are hereby directed to reinstate Abril to her position last held. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. Inc. her employment was terminated. Rosalie M.500 which had been deducted from her salary. made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. INC. after which period. J. On appeal. Petition was dismissed. Victoria Abril Ponente: Romero. FACTS: On September 1982. (PFCCI) and held different positions such as office secretary in 1985 and as cashier-designate for four months ending in April 1988. Benedicto Jayoma Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission. 1991 until December 31.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. Article 281 of the Labor Code expresses that Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working. 1993 it was dismissed for lack of merit but ordered PFCCI to reimburse her the amount of P2. which is that of a Regional Field Officer. 1992 until she is actually reinstated. 1992. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 363 . 2011-0038 PHIL. Abril became a regular employee regardless of the designations and may be dismissed only for just or authorized causes under Articles 282. After resuming her position as office secretary. Having completed the probationary period and allowed to work thereafter. she went on leave until she gave birth. private respondent Abril was employed by petitioner Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards. 1991. with full back wages computed from January 1. On April 1. Montilla. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES. On November 1989 she returned but she discovered that she had been permanently replaced. a complaint for illegal dismissal was filed by respondent against PFCCI and on March 10. Abril was allowed to work after the period until PFCCI presented to her another employment contract for a period of one year commencing on January 2. 1998 Petitioner: Phil.

1980. This Order was in turn appealed to the Office of the President. J. any employee who has rendered at least one year of service. 1980. 1976. 1979. 1983 Petitioner: Philippine Jai-Alai & Amusement Corporation Respondent: Hon. an Alias Writ of Execution was issued to collect from petitioner corporation the total amount of 26. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 364 . The report listed them as "casual emergency workers. due to completion of the project. Respondents allege that they had been terminated without just cause. On April 26. 281. The Order of December 24. On November 17. And. was denied by respondent Clave. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on March 19. 1977. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of the parties. except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking. on June 5. 1976. Amado G. ISSUE:  Whether or not private respondents are regular employees? HELD: NO. petitioner filed with the former Department of Labor a report of termination of the services of private respondents and 30 others. 1976 for reinstatement with full back wages. since only one such Motion is allowed and the grounds invoked were substantially the same as those previously raised. 1976. On December 13. 1980.. That. petitioner hired plumber Cadatal and mason Delgra together with 30 other workers for a period of one month to continue even after that period should their services be needed further in the renovation work. Regular and Casual Employment." A summary Order was issued on December 24. but since minor repairs were still needed. VS CLAVE GR No: L-54136 Date: Dec. representing private respondents' full back wages. The appeal was dismissed on January 25. This renovation was completed by the end of October 1976 but their services were still need for further projects. 1976 and were fully paid for their labor up to that date.00. Rufino Cadatal Jr. 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. 1979. Hon. an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. 21. private respondents received notice of termination effective November 29. Art 281 of the Labor Code states that: Art..260. FACTS: On February 2. Hon. Jacobo C. Antonio Delgra Ponente: Melencio-Herrera. a second Motion for Reconsideration dated April 24. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided. 1976 was affirmed in an Order dated July 13. 1976. Inciong. Clave. whether such service is continuous or broken. shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists. they worked up to December 11.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION 2011-0038 PHILIPPINE JAI-ALAI & AMUSEMENT CORP. Vicente Leogardo Jr.

They were engaged for a specific project or undertaking and fall within the exception provided for in Article 281 of the Labor Code. supra. it cannot be justifiably said that petitioner had dismissed them without just cause.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION The casual or limited character of private respondents' employment. They are not entitled to reinstatement with full back wages Thus previous decision is reversed and set aside. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 365 . Not being regular employees. therefore. is evident.

1986 Petitioner: Sandoval Shipyards Inc. it cannot be said that even after the completion of one vessel the employment shall still continue because each vessel is a different project depending on the need of the client. Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment. Alfredo dela Cruz. Rolando Roldan. NLRC GR No: L-66119 Date: May 31. On the contrary. Solomon Gemino. FACTS: The private respondents are all workers of petitioner Sandoval Shipyards Inc. In the case. Feliciano Tolang. regardless of the number of projects in which they have been employed by a particular construction company. Armando Esglanda. Mario Ricafort. J. 20 of the Secretary of Labor states that: Project employees are those employed in connection with a particular construction project. Respondent: Vicente Leogardo. Jr. ISSUE:  Whether or not the workers are project employees? HELD: YES. Vicente Cebuano. According the petitioner. Rosalie M. Rodrigo Perez. Angel Samson Ponente: Aquino. engaged in the building and repair of vessels. Policy Instructions No.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. Manuel Medina. the private respondents claim that they are regular employees because the termination of one project does not mean the end of their employment since they can be assigned to unfinished projects. The complaints for illegal layoff are dismissed ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 366 . Aquilino Tabilon. the company is not required to obtain clearance from the Secretary of Labor in connection with such termination. Freddie Abadiez. Moreover. Rolando Lopez. 2011-0038 SANDOVAL SHIPYARDS INC VS. Non-project (regular) employees are those employed by a construction company without reference to any particular project. Danilo dela Cruz. Nicolas Mariano. Teodoro Roldan. Rodrigo Villaruz. Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they are employed. each vessel is a separate project and thus employment shall cease upon completion of a vessel.

Disability—(a) A total disability is temporary if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period not exceeding 120 days. ISSUE:  Whether or not the petitioner has permanent total disability? HELD: YES. 2011-0038 VICENTE VS ECC GR No: 85024 Date: Jan. Optional retirement is allowed only upon proof that the employee-applicant is already physically incapacitated to render sound and efficient service. under good behavior. the respondent rendered a decision affirming the ruling of the GSIS Employees' Disability Compensation and dismissed the petitioner's appeal. the petitioner's permanent total disability is established beyond doubt. cardiomegaly. to 20 more years in service. and left ventricular hypertrophy. (c) A disability is partial permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee suffers a permanent partial loss of the use of any part of his body. Sec. hypertension. 1986. J. After having more than 25 years in service and at 45 years old. 1981 up to March 1983. 1991 Petitioner: Domingo Vicente Respondent: Employees’ Compensation Commission Ponente: Sarmiento. A motion for reconsideration granted him the equivalent of additional four months benefits.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Montilla. 2. he applied for optional retirement duet to his physical disability of osteoarthritis. He claims that he should be compensated no less than for permanent total disability. Rosalie M. 1988. (b) A disability is total and permanent if as a result of the injury or sickness the employee is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period exceeding 120 days except as otherwise provided for in Rule X of these Rules. the approval of his optional retirement application proves that he was no longer fit to continue in his employment. In the case. His application was granted but only for permanent partial disability compensation or for a period of nineteen months starting from August 16. except as otherwise provided in Rule X of these Rules. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 367 . His request had been denied. The decision of the respondent Commission even admits that the petitioner retired from government service at the age of 45. The petitioner likewise filed with the Government Service Insurance System an application for income benefits claim for payment. The decision of the respondent Employees' Compensation Commission is set aside and another one is hereby entered declaring the petitioner to be suffering from permanent total disability. 2 Rule VII of the Amended Rules on Employees Compensation states that: Sec. 23. the petitioner again sent a letter to the GSIS Disability Compensation Department Manager on November 6. Considering that the petitioner was only 45 years old when he retired and still entitled. On August 24. His case was elevated to the respondent Employees Compensation Commission. Still unsatisfied. The petitioner's application for optional retirement on the basis of his ailments had been approved. FACTS: The petitioner Vicente was a nursing attendant at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center.

petitioner maintained that its need for workers varied. 1992. What is clear is that Acedillo's work as a helper-electrician was an activity "necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade" of petitioner. v NLRC G. Finally. On January 16. AGUILAR CORPORATION Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROMEO ACEDILLO Ponente: ROMERO. Facts: Private respondent Romeo Acedillo began working for petitioner in February 1989 as a helper-electrician. dealing as they do with the appreciation of evidence by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. JETTNER R. 116352 March 13. Ruling: Yes. 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. depending on contracts procured in the course of its business of contracting refrigeration and other related works. This ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 368 . J. It contended that its workers are hired on a contractual or project basis. On this sole ground. a closer examination of the records and of the papers and pleadings filed doubly convinces the Court of the futility of this action. 2011-0095 WORKPOOL EMPLOYEES – AGUILAR CORP.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION PASCUA. but it failed to do so.O. In reply. since refrigeration requires considerable electrical work. No. It is immediately apparent that the issues raised in the instant petition are factual. However. Issue: Whether or not private respondent is a member of the work pool of employees of petitioner. petitioner argued that Acedillo was not a regular employee because his employment was for a definite period and apparently made only to augment the regular work force." The records reveal that petitioner did not specify the duration and scope of the undertaking at the time Acedillo's services were contracted. He decided to file a case for illegal dismissal before the NLRC after learning that new workers were being hired by petitioner while his request to return to work was being ignored. & D. It is not even clear if Acedillo ever signed an employment contract with petitioner. and their employment is deemed terminated upon completion of the project for which they were hired. he received a letter from petitioner informing him of his severance from the company allegedly due to lack of available projects and excess in the number of workers needed. 1997 Petitioner: J. Neither is there any proof that the duration of his assignment was made clear to him other than the selfserving assertion of petitioner that the same can be inferred from the tasks he was made to perform. the petition may justifiably be dismissed.R. Petitioner could have easily presented an employment contract showing that he was engaged only for a specific project. Petitioner is to be reminded that a project employee is one whose "employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking.

The petitioner admits that it maintains two sets of workers. a practice which persisted throughout the duration of his tenure. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 369 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION necessity is further bolstered by the fact that petitioner would hire him anew after the completion of each project. those who are permanently employed and get paid regardless of the availability of work and those who are hired on a project basis. viz..

Facts: Private respondent Grulla was engaged by Engineering Construction and Industrial Development Company (ENDECO) through A. unpaid wages for the unexpired ten (10) months of his contract and the sum of P1. He was rushed to the New Jeddah Clinic and was confined there for twelve (12) days. 1989 Petitioner: A.lâwphî1. Inc. (ENDECO) with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). On August 15. Since then. respondent Grulla filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. and Engineering Construction and Industrial Development Co.R. On August 27. and that Grulla was dismissed because he has not performed his duties satisfactorally within the probationary period of three months. Ruling: Yes.M. 1980.M.. J. respondent Grulla reported back to his Project Manager and presented to the latter a medical certificate declaring the former already fit for work. 1980 was for a period of twelve (12) months. Saudi Arabia. violations of the rules and regulations promulgated by the contractor.M. 1980. INC. 2011-0095 Employer Obligation – A. 1980. Issue: Whether or not petitioner has an employer obligation over private respondent. which was entered into June 11. as one of the grounds for termination..M.000. Ponente: MEDIALDEA. Oreta and Company.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION PASCUA. Grulla was discharged from the hospital and was told that he could resume his normal duties after undergoing physical therapy for two weeks. Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SIXTO GRULLA JR. Oreta and Company. recovery of medical benefits. the standards by which he will qualify as a regular employee. as a carpenter in its projects in Jeddah. The contract of employment. In December. There is also no evidence on record showing that the respondent Grulla has been appraised of his probationary status and the requirements which he should comply in order to be a regular employee. Nowhere in the employment contract executed between petitioner company and respondent Grulla is there a stipulation that the latter shall undergo a probationary period for three months before he can qualify as a regular employee. ORETA & CO. No..00 as reimbursement of medical expenses against A. the employer shall make known to the employee at the time he is hired.ñèt The petitioner A. JETTNER R. On September 18. The law is clear to the effect that in all cases involving employees engaged on probationary period basis. there is ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 370 . 1980. Oreta and Co. Respondent Grulla left the Philippines for Jeddah. he started working again until he received a notice of termination of his employment on October 9. v NLRC G. ORETA AND CO. INC. In the absence of this requisites.M.. Grulla met an accident which fractured his lumbar vertebra while working at the jobsite. Inc. 1980. 74004 August 10. Inc and ENDECO filed their answer and alleged that the contract of employment entered into between petitioners and Grulla provides. 1981. Saudi Arabia on August 5..

the petitioner claims that notice and hearing are important only if the employee is not aware of the problems affecting his employment. notified of the charges against him before he was outrightly dismissed. in any manner.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION justification in concluding that respondent Grulla was a regular employee at the time he was dismissed by petitioner. As such. In the case at bar. he is entitled to security of tenure during his period of employment and his services cannot be terminated except for just and authorized causes enumerated under the Labor Code and under the employment contract. Anent the respondent Commission's finding of lack of due process in the dismissal of Grulla. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 371 . Consequently the respondent Grulla should be paid his salary for the unexpired portion of his contract of employment which is ten (10) months. Neither of these requirements can be dispensed with without running afoul of the due process requirement of the Constitution. Neither was any hearing or investigation conducted by the company to give the respondent a chance to be heard concerning the alleged unsatisfactory performance of his work. We find that this contention has no legal basis. In view of the foregoing. that the same is not true in the instant case where respondent Grulla knew all along that he could no longer effectively perform his job due to his physical condition. while the requirement of hearing affords the employee an opportunity to answer his employer's charges against him and accordingly to defend himself therefrom before dismissal is effected. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute essential elements of due process in cases of employee dismissal: the requirement of notice is intended to inform the employee concerned of the employer's intent to dismiss and the reason for the proposed dismissal. the dismissal of respondent Grulla violated the security of tenure under the contract of employment which specifically provides that the contract term shall be for a period of twelve (12) calendar months. respondent Grulla was not.

Private respondent stressed that its business "…relies heavily on companies availing of its services. or when employee is dismissed for just and lawful causes provided by law. On the other hand. "…the certainty of the expiration of complainant’s engagement has been determined at the time of their (sic) engagement (until 27 November 1991) or when the project is earlier completed or when the client withdraws. 1991. 1992.R. in its position paper filed on July 16. 1988 until October 18. petitioner entered into thirteen (13) separate employment contracts with private respondent. 114734 March 31." According to private respondent. Aside from the basic hourly rate. In her position paper dated August 3. 1992 and filed before labor arbiter Raul T. 1991 when her services were terminated." thus charging private respondent with committing unfair labor practices. 2011-0095 PROJECT EMPLOYMENT – IMBUIDO v NLRC G. No. from August 26. Petitioner further complained of non-payment of service incentive leave benefits and underpayment of 13th month pay.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION PASCUA." NOT a "project employee" as found by public respondent NLRC. INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES. her contract of employment is deemed terminated per the Brent School ruling." Private respondent further argued that petitioner’s employment was for a "specific project with a specified period of engagement." usually lasting for a period of "two (2) to five (5) months. 1988 until October 18. Aquino. 2000 Petitioner: VIVIAN Y. Its retention by client companies with particular emphasis on data encoding is on a project to project basis. Inc. specific job contract number and period of employment. each contract lasting only for a period of three (3) months. a domestic corporation engaged in the business of data encoding and keypunching. private respondent averred that petitioner’s "claims for non-payment of overtime time (sic) and service incentive leave [pay] are without factual and legal basis. The happening of any of these events will automatically terminate this contract of employment." Finally.. This Contract is for a specific project/job contract only and shall be effective for the period covered as above-mentioned unless sooner terminated when the job contract is completed earlier or withdrawn by client. maintained that it had valid reasons to terminate petitioner’s employment and disclaimed any knowledge of the existence or formation of a union among its rank-and-file employees at the time petitioner’s services were terminated. and GABRIEL LIBRANDO Ponente: BUENA. From August 26. J Facts: Petitioner was employed as a data encoder by private respondent International Information Services. JETTNER R." as provided in the contract. INC." Issue: Whether or not Petitioner was a "regular employee. petitioner alleged that her employment was terminated not due to the alleged low volume of work but because she "signed a petition for certification election among the rank and file employees of respondents. "The happening of the second event [completion of the project] has materialized. thus. each contract contains the following terms and conditions: "a. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. IMBUIDO Respondent: . private respondent. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 372 .

and 2) The tasks performed by the alleged "project employee" are vital. In the recent case of Maraguinot. 1991 and contracted for a total of thirteen (13) successive projects. In the instant case. even as we concur with the NLRC’s findings that petitioner is a project employee. 1988 to October 18." Based on the foregoing. a corporation engaged in the business of data encoding and keypunching. as admittedly. performing activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of her employer. We have previously ruled that "[h]owever. necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. However. all of which contained a designation of the specific job contract and a specific period of employment. we held that "[a] project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the status of a regular employee when the following concur: 1) There is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after [the] cessation of a project. we have reached a different conclusion. NLRC. and her employment was fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which had been determined at the time of her engagement. petitioner worked as a data encoder for private respondent. we conclude that petitioner has attained the status of a regular employee of private respondent. continuously for a period of more than three (3) years. vs. petitioner was engaged to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. the length of time during which the employee was continuously re-hired is not controlling. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 373 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ruling: Yes. but merely serves as a badge of regular employment. from August 26." The evidence on record reveals that petitioner was employed by private respondent as a data encoder. Jr. as may be observed from the series of employment contracts between petitioner and private respondent.

MYRA M. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 374 . 2011-0095 PROJECT EMPLOMENT – MANANSANG v NLRC G. BUENA Y. URBI. However. ROSEMELY B. BALPERMOSO. On the other hand. DOLLY CLAVEL. private respondent hired the services of petitioners as field interviewers whose job was to gather data on consumer products to be submitted to the office of private respondent for evaluation or analysis. SEVILLA. MERISSA MARTINEZ. LORELIE TORRES. FABIAN. GLORIA TIONGCO. CHERILYN A. JESIFINA GALAPON. TORREFRANCA. RAMOS. petitioners objected to this proposal as they are regular employees of private respondent. In the course of petitioners' employment with private respondent company. CORTEZ. MENDOZA. a major stockholder of private respondent Consumer Pulse. 1993 Petitioners: LETICIA MAMANSAG. CASTILO. DAVID. URBINA G. private respondent's Human Resources Department Director Thelma Baricawa denied having told petitioners that they would be transferred to a sub-contractor. VICENTE. MAXIMINIA DOREZA. their completion of the project resulted in the completion of their contract and automatic cessation of their employment. ARDILA. AVELINA F. CACANINDIN. is engaged in the business of conducting market researches and public surveys on consumer products and services for its clients. JULIETA T. MARILYN RAMBOANGA. CORTEZ. Due to the very nature of its business. CONCHITA C. CORA UBEREZ. NORA L. ROSARIO F. MAGBUTAY. petitioners were required by the latter to sign contracts specifying the name of the project and the duration of their employment. DOLOR L. DONES. SONIA G. Inc. MARY JANE B.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION PASCUA. MARIE A. MYRNA L. petitioners were called to a meeting by private respondent company's Human Resources Department Director. TUGBO. AZUCENA H. HENRIETTA N. however. LUZ R. MA. Thelma Baricawa. Since their contract with petitioners was on a per project basis. SEGUNDA S. BEUMEJO. Inc. NARAG. ALBERTO. ALFRENITA BARANGUELA Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (2ND DIVISION). EDELINA S. AND ROSARIO CHEW Ponente: NOCON. MILA ROLLEQUE.R. NAVARRO. PERVASDO. ROSARIO M. GUILLERMA C. MARILOU B. MARISSA P. Sometime in February 1987. TRINIDAD. SONIA E. MERIE OSIGAN. What she told them was to upgrade the quality of their work and form themselves into a group of duly licensed job contractors or subcontractors since private respondent company would henceforth engage only the services of duly licensed contractors or sub-contractors to handle its job projects. CONSUMER PULSE INC. NANCY S. 97520 February 9. HELENITA T. DIMALAIWAN. TAN. BELINDA P. PEREZ. ESTER T. GLORIA CORAZON. where they were told that they would be transferred to a sub-contractor who would be paying them directly. to become members of the Rosie Chew Foundation whose founder is private respondent Rosario Chew. MIRANDA. NONA FE C. They likewise rejected the offer of Consumer Pulse. deny having dismissed petitioners. JETTNER R. J Facts: Private respondent Consumer Pulse Inc. BATANG. LAO. No. BALIBOC. ENRIQUEZ. LORNA R. GALONGAN. FRANEHE. CAPELLAN. ALTHEA G. TERESA D. LELIA A. ISABEL B. MYRNA F. Private respondents. BAGASBAS. ARCANYA. CAMACHO. LEONILA A. NAPILAN. MYRNA M.

Ruling: Yes.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Issue: Whether or not petitioners are project employees of private respondent. with without respondent company incurring financial losses. An examination of the petitioners contract of employment showed that they were hired by private respondent company for a specific project and the completion or termination of said project was determined at the start of their employment. Petitioners cannot be hired for an indefinite period of time and carried on the company's payroll even without projects to work. the duration of the employment of its employees is not permanent but co-terminus with the projects to which they are assigned and from whose payrolls they are paid. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 375 . By the very nature of their employer's business. they will always remain project employees regardless of the number of projects in which they have worked. The fact that petitioners worked for several projects of private respondent company is no basis to consider them as regular employees. As field interviewers of private respondent company. Necessarily. the latter depends for its business on the contract it is able to obtain from its clients.

JR.00 in May 1991. 1998 Petitioners: ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT. Alejandria Cesario.R.. then refused to take him back when he reported for work on 20 July 1992. In June 1992. and PAULINO ENERO Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) composed of Presiding Commissioner RAUL T.00 in September 1991. Ponente: DAVIDE. on his part. Cesario informed petitioners that Mr. he was designated Assistant Electrician with a weekly salary of P400. J. Petitioner Paulino Enero. Mrs. and assisting in the “fixing” of the lighting system. RAYALA and Commissioner VICTORIANO R. Moreover. Commissioner ROGELIO I.00 in May 1990. Petitioners thus sued for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. Mrs. which was increased to P593. claims that private respondents employed him in June 1990 as a member of the shooting crew with a weekly salary of P375. CALAYCAY (Ponente). Jr. Maraguinot was dropped from the company payroll from 8 to 21 June 1992. unloading and arranging of movie equipment in the shooting area as instructed by the cameramen. No. petitioners sought the assistance of their supervisor. Sometime in May 1992. the loading.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION PASCUA. he was promoted to the rank of Electrician with a weekly salary of P475. About four months later. returning the equipment to the Viva Films’ warehouse. among other chores. 120969 January 22.00 on 21 December 1991. In June 1991. it ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 376 . but merely serves as a badge of regular employment. AQUINO. private respondents terminated his services on 20 July 1992. Issue: Whether or not does the length of time that the petitioners were employed by respondent made them regular employees.00. maintains that he was employed by private respondents on 18 July 1989 as part of the filming crew with a salary of P375. and when he still refused. As regards the underscored phrase. private respondents forced Enero to go on leave in June 1992. but was returned on 22 June 1992. He was again asked to sign a blank employment contract. which was increased to P425.00. Ruling: Yes. the evidence on record shows that petitioner Enero was employed for a total of two (2) years and engaged in at least eighteen (18) projects. JR. JETTNER R. 2011-0095 LENGTH OF TIME – MARAGUINOT v NLRC G. Facts: Petitioner Alejandro Maraguinot. which was increased to P450. VIC DEL ROSARIO and VIVA FILMS. it may not be gainsaid that these tasks were vital.00. The length of time during which the employee was continuously re-hired is not controlling. to facilitate their request that private respondents adjust their salary in accordance with the minimum wage law. In the instant case. As petitioners refused to sign.00 per week. necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Vic del Rosario would agree to increase their salary only if they signed a blank employment contract. then to P475. Meanwhile. while petitioner Maraguinot was employed for some three (3) years and worked on at least twenty-three (23) projects. as petitioners’ tasks involved.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 377 .LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION has been held that this is ascertained by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety.

v NLRC G. INC. PAL paid each of the security guards actually assigned at the time of the termination of the agreement an amount equivalent to their one-month salary to compensate for the lack of notice. any and all liability or on account of any such injury. Issue: Whether or not petitioner became an indirect employer of guards herein supplied by private respondent. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 378 . their performance of work and services under this Agreement. Inc. CONTRACTOR shall have entire charge. HON. and the CONTRACTOR hereby covenants and agrees to assume. On 16 February 1990. Inc. Orders and with the rules and regulations promulgated by competent authorities implementing said acts. understood that the CONTRACTOR undertakes to pay the wages or salaries and cost of living allowance of the guards in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code. private respondent Unicorn Security Services. and PAL shall in no manner be answerable or accountable for any accident or injury of any kind which may occur to any guard or guards of the CONTRACTOR in the course of. 2011-0095 PROJECT EMPLOYMENT – PHIL. Instead.. as it does hereby assume. 120506 October 28. Facts: On 23 December 1987.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION PASCUA. Among the pertinent terms and conditions of the agreement are as follows: (4) The CONTRACTOR shall assign to PAL an initial force of EIGHTY ONE (81) bodies … which may be decreased or increased by agreement in writing … . of course. loss or damage arising from the negligence of or carelessness of the guards of the CONTRACTOR or of anyone of its employ to any person or persons or to its or their property whether in the premises of PAL or elsewhere. as amended. USSI was designated therein as the CONTRACTOR.. control and supervision of the work and services herein agreed upon. and PAL on the other. (USSI) and petitioner Philippine Airlines. LABOR ARBITER CORNELIO LINSANGAN. assuming all responsibilities therefor. (PAL) executed a security service agreement. No. It is. the different Presidential Decrees. INC. Ponente: DAVIDE. JR. or for any injury. Xxx (10) The security guards employed by CONTRACTOR in performing this Agreement shall be paid by the CONTRACTOR and it is distinctly understood that there is no employee-employer relationship between CONTRACTOR and/or his guards on the one hand. UNICORN SECURITY SERVICES. PAL terminated the security service agreement with USSI without giving the latter the 30-day prior notice required in paragraph 20 thereof. J.R. INC. loss or damage. 1996 Petitioner: PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. or as a consequence of. et al. and FRED BAUTISTA.. and shall indemnify PAL for any liability or expense it may incur by reason thereof and to hold PAL free and harmless from any such liability. JETTNER R. AIRLINES. Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.

an employer-employee relationship is an indispensable jurisdictional requisite. In all these cases. salaries. Indirect employer. No. shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code. all other claims. and (e) determined their wages. vests upon Labor Arbiter exclusive original jurisdiction only over the following: 1. not being an employer.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. arising from employer-employee relations. and compensation. The security service agreement between PAL and USSI provides the key to such consideration.Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the former’s work. The preceding Article referred to. Considering then that no employer-employee relationship existed between PAL and the security guards. as amended. involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos(P5. 442). job or project. those cases that workers may file involving wages. 5. including questions involving legality of strikes and lockouts. especially the terms and conditions embodied in paragraphs 4 and 10 quoted earlier in this ponencia. (b) assigned them to PAL according to the number agreed upon. Social Security. A careful perusal thereof. at its own expense. Unfair labor practice cases. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code. rates of pay. therefore. the employees of the contractor and of the latter’s subcontractor. We agree with the Solicitor General that these Articles are inapplicable to PAL under the facts of this case.000. moral. including those of persons in domestic or house hold service. which is Article 106. the security guards with firearms and ammunitions. -. it is solidarily liable with USSI. demonstrates beyond doubt that USSI-and not PAL – was the employer of the security guards. engaged or hired and discharged the security guards. (c) provided. (d) discipline and supervised them or controlled their conduct. 2.D. 3. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 379 .The provisions of the immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to any person. The Labor Arbiter cannot avoid the jurisdictional issue or justify his assumption of jurisdiction on the pretext that PAL was the indirect employer of the security guards under Article 107 in relation to Articles 106 and 109 of the Labor Code and. Even if we disregard the explicit covenant in said agreement that “there exist no employeremployee relationship between CONTRACTOR and/or his guards on the one hand. 4. hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment. partnership. task. Article 107 provides: ART. 107. if any. association or corporation which. Termination disputes.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Ruling: No. -. contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any work. 106. the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the claim Article 217 of the Labor Code (P. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. and 6. Contractor or subcontractor. partly reads as follows: ART. Except claims for Employees Compensation. and (f) paid them salaries or wages. Claims for actual. exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-employee relations. It was USSI which (a) selected. Medicare and maternity benefits. and PAL on the other” all other considerations confirm the fact that PAL was not the security guards’ employer.

the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 380 . in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code.

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
PASCUA, JETTNER R.
2011-0095
PROJECT EMPLOYMENT – PHIL. FRUITS AND VEGETABLES INDUSTRIES, INC. v NLRC
G.R. No. 122122
July 20, 1999
Petitioners:
PHILIPPINE FRUIT & VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES, INC. and its President and General Manager, MR.
PEDRO CASTILLO
Respondents:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Workers UnionTupas Local Chapter
Ponente:
KAPUNAN, J.

Facts:
Petitioner Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Industries, Inc. (PFVII, for brevity) is a government-owned and
controlled corporation engaged in the manufacture and processing of fruit and vegetable purees for
export. Petitioner Pedro Castillo is the former President and General Manager of petitioner PFVII.
On September 5, 1988 herein private respondent Philippine Fruit and Vegetable Workers Union-Tupas
Local Chapter, for and in behalf of 127 of its members, filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and/or
illegal dismissal with damages against petitioner corporation. Private respondent alleged that many of its
complaining members started working for San Carlos Fruits Corporation which later incorporated into
PFVII in January or February 1983 until their dismissal on different dates in 1985, 1986, 1987 and
1988. They further alleged that the dismissals were due to complainants' involvement in union activities
and were without just cause.
The above arguments boil down to the issue of whether or not complaining members of respondent union
are regular employees of PFVII or are seasonal workers whose employment ceased during the offseason due to the non-availability of work.

Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES WHOSE
EMPLOYMENTS CEASED DURING THE OFF-SEASON DUE TO NO WORK AND NOT DUE TO
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.

Ruling:
No. As culled from the records, it appears that herein 194 individual complainants are members of
complainant union in respondent company which is engaged in the manufacture and processing of fruit
xxx and vegetable purees for export. They were employed as seeders, operators, sorters, slicers,
janitors, drivers, truck helpers, mechanics and office personnel.
xxx

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 381

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
By the very nature of things in a business enterprise like respondent company’s, to our mind, the services
of herein complainants are, indeed, more than six (6) months a year. We take note of the undisputed fact
that the company did not confine itself just to the processing of tomatoes and mangoes. It also processed
guyabano, calamansi, papaya, pineapple, etc. Besides, there is the office administrative functions,
cleaning and upkeeping of machines and other duties and tasks to keep up (sic) a big food processing
corporation.
Under the above provision, an employment shall be deemed regular where the employee: a) has been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer; or b) has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which he is employed.
In the case at bar, the work of complainants as seeders, operators, sorters, slicers, janitors, drivers, truck
helpers, mechanics and office personnel is without doubt necessary in the usual business of a food
processing company like petitioner PFVII.
It should be noted that complainants' employment has not been fixed for a specific project or undertaking
the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of their appointment or hiring.
Neither is their employment seasonal in nature. While it may be true that some phases of petitioner
company's processing operations is dependent on the supply of fruits for a particular season, the other
equally important aspects of its business, such as manufacturing and marketing are not seasonal. The
fact is that large-scale food processing companies such as petitioner company continue to operate and
do business throughout the year even if the availability of fruits and vegetables is seasonal.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 382

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
PASCUA, JETTNER R.
2011-0095
SPECIFIED PERIOD/FIXED TERM – PUREFOODS CORP. v NLRC
G.R. No. 122653
December 12, 1997
Petitioner:
PURE FOODS CORPORATON
Respondents:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RODOLFO CORDOVA, VIOLETA CRUSIS, ET AL.
Ponente:
DAVIDE, JR., J.
Facts:
The private respondents (numbering 906) were hired by petitioner Pure Foods Corporation to work for a
fixed period of five months at its tuna cannery plant in Tambler, General Santos City. After the expiration
of their respective contracts of employment in June and July 1991, their services were terminated. They
forthwith executed a “Release and Quitclaim” stating that they had no claim whatsoever against the
petitioner.
On 29 July 1991, the private respondents filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI, General Santos City, a complaint for illegal dismissal against the
petitioner and its plant manager, Marciano Aganon.
The petitioner submits that the private respondents are now estopped from questioning their separation
from petitioner’s employ in view of their express conformity with the five-month duration of their
employment contracts. Besides, they fell within the exception provided in Article 280 of the Labor Code
which reads: “[E]xcept where the 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.”
The private respondents, on the other hand, argue that contracts with a specific period of employment
may be given legal effect provided, however, that they are not intended to circumvent the constitutional
guarantee on security of tenure. They submit that the practice of the petitioner in hiring workers to work
for a fixed duration of five months only to replace them with other workers of the same employment
duration was apparently to prevent the regularization of these so-called “casuals,” which is a clear
circumvention of the law on security of tenure.
Issue:
Whether or not private respondents are employed and that of having secured term/fixed term, by
petitioner.
Ruling:
Yes. Private respondents’ activities consisted in the receiving, skinning, loining, packing, and casing-up of
tuna fish which were then exported by the petitioner. Indisputably, they were performing activities which
were necessary and desirable in petitioner’s business or trade.
Contrary to petitioner's submission, the private respondents could not be regarded as having been hired
for a specific project or undertaking. The term “specific project or undertaking” under Article 280 of the
Labor Code contemplates an activity which is not commonly or habitually performed or such type of work
which is not done on a daily basis but only for a specific duration of time or until completion; the services
employed are then necessary and desirable in the employer’s usual business only for the period of time
it takes to complete the project.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 383

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
The fact that the petitioner repeatedly and continuously hired workers to do the same kind of work as that
performed by those whose contracts had expired negates petitioner’s contention that those workers were
hired for a specific project or undertaking only.
Now on the validity of private respondents' five-month contracts of employment. In the leading case of
Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, which was reaffirmed in numerous subsequent cases, this Court has upheld
the legality of fixed-term employment. It ruled that the decisive determinant in term employment should
not be the activities that the employee is called upon to perform but the day certain agreed upon by the
parties for the commencement and termination of their employment relationship. But, this Court went on
to say that where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods have been imposed to preclude
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to
public policy and morals.
Brent also laid down the criteria under which term employment cannot be said to be in circumvention of
the law on security of tenure:
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.
The five-month period specified in private respondents’ employment contracts having been imposed
precisely to circumvent the constitutional guarantee on security of tenure should, therefore, be struck
down or disregarded as contrary to public policy or morals. To uphold the contractual arrangement
between the petitioner and the private respondents would, in effect, permit the former to avoid hiring
permanent or regular employees by simply hiring them on a temporary or casual basis, thereby violating
the employees’ security of tenure in their jobs.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 384

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
PASCUA, JETTNER R.
2011-0095
SECURITY OF TENURE – SOUTHERN COTOBATO v NLRC
G.R. No. 121582
October 16, 1997
Petitioners:
SOUTHERN
COTABATO
DEVELOPMENT
AND
CONSTRUCTION,
INC.
or SODECO/LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION JOINT VENTURE/ELLA G. DEMANDANTE
Respondents:
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATION
COMMISSION,
Fourth
Division,
and
PEDRO
RABINA,
ALEXANDER
YBA,
BILLY
BULFA,
JOSE
GERONILLA,
ALFREDO
SEIT,
JUANITO
DUEÑAS,
RICHARD
SILORIO,
NENITO
NALIPAY,
ENIE
DINOLAN,
JOSE
NICO
ESPAÑOL,
ROBERTO
ALABATA,
JOSE
SUELTO,
ARTEMIO
VILAN,
SENENIO
B.
SALACOT,
JESUS
BANQUERIGO,
MOISES
REPOLLO,
WEBSTER SERION, RENATO
DUE-ÑAS, JAIME RODRIGUEZ, RAUL AGUSTIN, WELIJADO
SALOMA, JOSEPH SALOMA, MELICIO DARING, JR., GUILLERMO ALMARIO, GUIL-BERT
TIO, BENEGILDO ARABE, ROMULO SALACOT, MIGUELITO ORIOLA, ARTEMIO VILAN, JR.,
ARMANDO VILAN, ALBERT SUELTO, ALBERTO QUINQUELERIA, SIXTO TOLEDO, RODRIGO
MARAVILLAS, RAMON SILORIO, HAROLD MIRAFLOR, DAVID RABINA, AL-FONSO DUENAS,
ROBERTO FER-NANDO ALABATA, ANTONIO MONTEDERAMOS, JR., DANNY SEDILLO,
PURIFICACION BAL-BUENA, WEBSTER SERION, JR., MARIANO SILORIO, BENITO MAG-SINO, and
TOMAS ESPAÑOL
Ponente:
DAVIDE, JR., J.
Facts:
Petitioners Southern Cotabato Development and Construction, Inc. (SODECO) and Liberty Construction
entered into a joint venture for the construction of a road, funded by the Asian Development Bank
(ADB), connecting the municipality of Sibulan in Negros Oriental and Bais City. Petitioner Ella G.
Demandante was the Managing Director of SODECO.
Private respondents, hired by SODECO as watchmen, survey aides, laborers and carpenters in
connection with the road construction project, alleged that they were dismissed by Demandante when
they asked for salary increases. They then sued for illegal dismissal and sought reinstatement with
payment of wage differentials, overtime pay, premium pay for rest days and holidays, thirteenth month
pay and damages with Regional Arbitration Branch VII of the NLRC.
In their position paper, private respondents alleged that they were underpaid as petitioners paid a daily
wage of merely P50 for the carpenters, P40 or P35 for the other workers, with the exception of Danny
Sedillo and Purificacion Balbuena who earned P400 a month. Private respondents- watchmen also
claimed that they were not paid their premium pay for working on their rest days or holidays, and for
overtime of at least four hours which they were required to render daily. Private respondents further
alleged that they signed petitioners’ copy of the payroll in triplicate, with the first page indicating the actual
amount received and the second and third pages left blank and stapled closely to the first sheet.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents were entitled to security of tenure and have they been unlawfully dismissed.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 385

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Ruling:
Yes. It is not disputed that private respondents were project employees. As such, they were entitled to
security of tenure guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code for the duration of the project they
were hired for, or the phases thereof to which they were assigned or in connection with which they
rendered services. The length of their employment is determined by the completion of the task for which
they were hired.
In the instant case, hearings were conducted as the parties opted for hearing instead of a submission of
the case based on position papers and supporting documents; and yet the respondents presented only
their paymaster who is ostensibly not in a position to testify as to the legality of the dismissals. The
respondents argued that the complainants, who were project employees, were laid-off upon the
completion of the phases of the project to which they were assigned and yet, produced no notices
thereof. As to the case of the watchmen, it unmistakably appears that they were illegally and unjustly
dismissed. They were hired to watch the facilities, and the respondents later discharged them for the
simple reason that they had to be replaced with licensed and armed guards. The respondents failed to
show that the watchmen by their service contracts were hired for a definite period or up to their
replacement by licensed and armed guards.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 386

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
PASCUA, JETTNER R.
2011-0095
ONE YEAR SERVICE – TABAS v CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING CO. INC,
G.R. No. L-80680
January 26, 1989
Petitioners:
DANILO B. TABAS, EDUARDO BONDOC, RAMON M. BRIONES, EDUARDO R. ERISPE, JOEL
MADRIAGA, ARTHUR M. ESPINO, AMARO BONA, FERDINAND CRUZ, FEDERICO A. BELITA,
ROBERTO P. ISLES, ELMER ARMADA, EDUARDO UDOG, PETER TIANSING, MIGUELITA
QUIAMBOA, NOMER MATAGA, VIOLY ESTEBAN and LYDIA ORTEGA
Respondents:
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., LILY-VICTORIA A. AZARCON, NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, and HON. EMERSON C. TUMANON
Ponente:
SARMIENTO, J.
Facts:
Petitioners were, prior to their stint with California, employees of Livi Manpower Services, Inc. (Livi), which
subsequently assigned them to work as "promotional merchandisers" for the former firm pursuant to a
manpower supply agreement. Among other things, the agreement provided that California "has no control
or supervisions whatsoever over [Livi's] workers with respect to how they accomplish their work or
perform [Californias] obligation"; the Livi "is an independent contractor and nothing herein contained shall
be construed as creating between [California] and [Livi] . . . the relationship of principal[-]agent or
employer[-]employee'; that "it is hereby agreed that it is the sole responsibility of [Livi] to comply with all
existing as well as future laws, rules and regulations pertinent to employment of labor" and that
"[California] is free and harmless from any liability arising from such laws or from any accident that may
befall workers and employees of [Livi] while in the performance of their duties for [California].
It was further expressly stipulated that the assignment of workers to California shall be on a "seasonal
and contractual basis"; that "[c]ost of living allowance and the 10 legal holidays will be charged directly to
[California] at cost "; and that "[p]ayroll for the preceeding [sic] week [shall] be delivered by [Livi] at
[California's] premises."
The petitioners were then made to sign employment contracts with durations of six months, upon the
expiration of which they signed new agreements with the same period, and so on. Unlike regular
California employees, who received not less than P2,823.00 a month in addition to a host of fringe
benefits and bonuses, they received P38.56 plus P15.00 in allowance daily.
The petitioners now allege that they had become regular California employees and demand, as a
consequence whereof, similar benefits. They likewise claim that pending further proceedings below, they
were notified by California that they would not be rehired. As a result, they filed an amended complaint
charging California with illegal dismissal.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners had already incurred one year of service as employees of respondent.
Ruling:
Yes. The records show that the petitioners bad been given an initial six-month contract, renewed for
another six months. Accordingly, under Article 281 of the Code, they had become regular employees-ofCalifornia-and had acquired a secure tenure. Hence, they cannot be separated without due process of
law.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 387

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
California resists reinstatement on the ground, first, that the petitioners are not its employees, and
second, by reason of financial distress brought about by "unfavorable political and economic atmosphere"
"coupled by the February Revolution." As to the first objection, we reiterate that the petitioners are its
employees and who, by virtue of the required one-year length-of-service, have acquired a regular status.
As to the second, we are not convinced that California has shown enough evidence, other than its bare
say so, that it had in fact suffered serious business reverses as a result alone of the prevailing political
and economic climate. We further find the attribution to the February Revolution as a cause for its alleged
losses to be gratuitous and without basis in fact.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 388

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
PASCUA, JETTNER R.
2011-0095
PROJECT EMPLOYMENT – UY v NLRC
G.R. No. 117983
September 6, 1996
Petitioner:
RIZALINO P. UY
Respondents:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Fourth Division), FELIPE O. MAGBANUA, CARLOS
DELA CRUZ, REMY ARNAIZ, BILLY ARNAIZ, ROLLY ARNAIZ, DOMINGO SALARDA, JULIO CAHILIG,
and NICANOR LABUEN
Ponente:
PUNO,J.
Facts:
Private respondents alleged in common that during their employment with petitioner, they rendered
services in petitioner's construction projects and in his other businesses such as gasoline station, lumber
and equipment yards; that their working hours were from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. with a one to two-hour
noon break for six days a week, from Monday to Saturday; that they worked during holidays but were paid
only their daily wages; and that after their dismissal, petitioner hired new workers at wages lower that
what they were receiving at the time they were dismissed.
In his answer, petitioner denied having businesses other than his construction company. He alleged that
private respondents were project employees; that they were hired by his foremen who paid them on a
"pakyaw" or daily wage basis in a construction project; that after completion of a project, private
respondents were free to find other jobs and engage in other sources of livelihood; that in fact, Felipe
Magbanua and Nicanor Labuen were farmers who worked for petitioner only after the harvest season,
Carlos dela Cruz worked for another businessman and was hired by petitioner only once in 1985, Remy
Arnaiz worked for the National Irrigation Administration, Billy and Rolly Arnaiz were fishermen and Rolly
was sometimes employed by the Department of Public Works and Highways, Domingo Salarda was a
tricycle driver who also worked in a farm, and Julio Cahilig was a carpenter who worked for petitioner
whenever his services were not contracted by other persons.
Issue:
WHETER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HEREIN ARE REGULAR EMPLOYEES. DESPITE
THEIR ADMISSIONS AND CORROBORATING EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THEY WORKED ON
PROJECTS.

Ruling:
No. Petitioner has not shown that private respondents were hired for a specific project the duration of
which had been determined at the time of hiring. In fact, petitioner has not identified the specific project
or undertaking or any phase thereof for which private respondents were hired. He failed to submit any
document such as private respondents employment contracts and employment records that would show
the dates of hiring and termination in relation to the particular construction project or the phases in which
they were employed. More importantly, petitioner has not presented the termination reports required to be
submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office every time his employees'
services were terminated upon completion of a project.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 389

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Even assuming that the contracts were admitted, they, at best, prove that petitioner was engaged in
construction projects in the province of Antique and Region VI, and that his firm is capable of undertaking
several major construction projects simultaneously contrary to petitioner's claims of being a modest
provincial contractor. In two of these contracts, petitioner is referred to as "Rizalino P. Uy General
Merchant." This description ironically supports private respondents' allegation that aside from his
construction firm, petitioner was also engaged as in other businesses to which he assigned private
respondents in-between projects.
Clearly, private respondents were non-project employees. As mason, carpenter and laborer, they
performed work necessary and desirable in the usual business of petitioner, and are thus deemed regular
employees. They were, however, dismissed without just cause and without proper notice and
hearing. Their dismissal was illegal for which reason the respondent Commission correctly awarded them
back wages and separation pay.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 390

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
PASCUA, JETTNER R.
2011-0095
PROJECT EMPLYMENT – VILLA v NLRC
G.R. No. 131552
February 19, 1999
Petitioner:
ARSENIO V. VILLA
Respondents:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), OCEAN-LINK CONTAINER
TERMINAL CENTER, BENJAMIN S. TAN and VICTORIA ACORDA
Ponente:
PUNO, J.
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the July 4, 1997 Decision and the September 22, 1997
Resolution of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) which deleted the
awards of reinstatement and backwages including attorney’s fees made by the Labor Arbiter in favor of
petitioner Arsenio V. Villa.
First, we fastrack the facts which are well established. Private respondent Ocean Link Container
Terminal Center Inc., is a private corporation engaged in the warehousing, shipping and delivery of
goods. Private respondent Benjamin Chua is its President while private respondent Victoria Acorda is its
general manager.
Petitioner was absorbed by respondent company from his previous employer when the company was
sold to the respondents. Petitioner’s services from 1991 up to May 1, 1993 was continued by the
respondent company. From May 1, 1993, petitioner served as a checker in the warehouse of respondent
company and his latest salary was P135.00 a day.
On June 22, 1994, petitioner met an accident while in the course of performing his job. His left hand was
pinned down by a crane and resulted in the deformity and total disability of his middle finger. He was
given a month of sick leave which he extended for another month as his hand had not completely
healed. Later, he discovered that respondent company terminated his services on August 27,
1994. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime,
13th month pay, differentials, and attorney’s fees against the private respondents.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was lawfully discharged as an employee of respondent company.
Ruling:
No. In view of the failure and/or refusal of the complainant to explain his position/side in writing, the
Respondent Corporation was left with no other alternative but to terminate for cause the employment of
the complainant effective August 29, 1994.
The date of termination of complainant’s employment is very significant because if complainant’s
employment is indeed terminated on August 17, 1994 as ruled and declared in the Appealed Decision,
then the Appealed Decision is not in error in its findings of facts and the Decision would have been in
order.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 391

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
However, contrary to the findings in the Appealed Decision, complainant’s employment was terminated
for cause on August 29, 1994 and upon due notice.
Since the monetary award in favor of the complainant was anchored on the wrongful and baseless
findings that complainant's employment was terminated on August 17, 1994 without notice and hearing,
necessarily the monetary award has also no basis in fact and in law.
th

That with respect to the award for the 13 month pay differential, complainant himself in one of the
hearings admitted to have received said 13th month pay.”
As aforestated, public respondent NLRC modified the Decision of the Labor Arbiter by deleting the
awards of reinstatement and backwages including attorney’s fees. It ratiocinated, viz:
“An evaluative review of the case as borne out by the record reveals that the cause for complainant’s
dismissal was due to repeated violation of company rules.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 392

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Alvin Pasicolan
2011-0089
Case Title:
G.R. No.:
Date:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Ponente:

AGUILAR CORP v. NLRC
G.R. No. 116352
March 13, 1997
J. & D.O. Aguilar Corporation
National Labor Relations Commission and Romeo Acedillo
J. Romero

Facts:
Private respondent Romeo Acedillo began working for petitioner in February 1989 as a helperelectrician. On January 16, 1992, he received a letter from petitioner informing him of his severance from
the company allegedly due to lack of available projects and excess in the number of workers needed. He
decided to file a case for illegal dismissal before the NLRC after learning that new workers were being
hired by petitioner while his request to return to work was being ignored. In reply, petitioner maintained
that its need for workers varied. It contended that its workers are hired on a contractual or project basis,
and their employment is deemed terminated upon completion of the project for which they were hired.
On June 17, 1993, Labor Arbiter rendered judgment declaring Acedillo's dismissal to be illegal,
finding him to be a member of the regular work pool, and ordering petitioner to pay him backwages, 13th
month pay, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, service incentive leave pay and underpayment of
wages.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter decision. Its motion for reconsideration of the said
decision having been rejected by the NLRC, petitioner filed the instant petition arguing that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Acedillo was a permanent worker and in affirming the
labor arbiter's grant of monetary benefits to him.
Issue:
Whether respondent was a permanent or regular employee of the company.
Held:
Yes. The records reveal that petitioner did not specify the duration and scope of the undertaking at
the time Acedillo's services were contracted. Neither is there any proof that the duration of his assignment
was made clear to him other than the self-serving assertion of petitioner that the same can be inferred
from the tasks he was made to perform.
What is clear is that Acedillo's work as a helper-electrician was an activity "necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade" of petitioner. This necessity is further bolstered by the fact that petitioner
would hire him anew after the completion of each project, a practice which persisted throughout the
duration of his tenure.
The petitioner admits that it maintains two sets of workers, viz., those who are permanently
employed and get paid regardless of the availability of work and those who are hired on a project basis.
This practice of keeping a work pool further renders untenable petitioner's position that Acedillo is not a
regular employee. As was held in the case of Philippine National Construction Corporation v. NLRC,

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 393

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
"Members of a work pool from which a construction company draws its project employees, if
considered employees of the construction company while in the work pool, are non-project employees or
employees for an indefinite period. If they are employed in a particular project, the completion of the
project or any phase thereof will not mean severance of (the) employer-employee relationship."

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 394

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Alvin Pasicolan
2011-0089
Case Title:
G.R. No.:
Date:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Ponente:

BRENT SCHOOL v. ZAMORA
G.R. No. 48494
February 5, 1990
Brent School, Inc., and REV. Gabriel Dimache,
Ronaldo Zamora, the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, Office of the President, and
Doroteo R. Alegre
J. Romero

Facts:
The root of the controversy at bar is an employment contract in virtue of which Doroteo R. Alegre
was engaged as athletic director by Brent School, Inc. at a yearly compensation of P20,000.00. The
contract fixed a specific term for its existence, five (5) years, i.e., from July 18, 1971, the date of execution
of the agreement, to July 17, 1976.
Some three months before the expiration of the stipulated period, Alegre was given a copy of the
report filed by Brent School with the Department of Labor advising of the termination of his services
effective on July 16, 1976. The stated ground for the termination was "completion of contract, expiration
of the definite period of employment."
However, at the investigation conducted by a Labor Conciliator of said report of termination of his
services, Alegre protested the announced termination of his employment. He argued that although his
contract did stipulate that the same would terminate on July 17, 1976, since his services were necessary
and desirable in the usual business of his employer, and his employment had lasted for five years, he had
acquired the status of a regular employee and could not be removed except for valid cause.
The Regional Director accepting the recommendation of the Labor Conciliator, required the
reinstatement of Alegre, as a "permanent employee," to his former position without loss of seniority rights
and with full back wages.
Brent School filed a motion for reconsideration. The Regional Director denied the motion and
forwarded the case to the Secretary of Labor for review. The latter sustained the Regional Director. Brent
appealed to the Office of the President. The Office dismissed its appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the
Labor Secretary's decision, hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether respondent was a permanent employee of the company.
Held:
No. The employment contract between Brent School and Alegre was executed on July 18, 1971,
at a time when the Labor Code of the Philippines (P.D. 442) had not yet been promulgated. Indeed, the
Code did not come into effect until November 1, 1974, some three years after the perfection of the
employment contract, and rights and obligations thereunder had arisen and been mutually observed and
enforced.
At that time, i.e., before the advent of the Labor Code, there was no doubt whatever about the
validity of term employment. It was impliedly but nonetheless clearly recognized by the Termination Pay
Law, R.A. 1052, 11 as amended by R.A. 1787. 12 Basically, this statute provided that—
In cases of employment, without a definite period, in a commercial, industrial, or
agricultural establishment or enterprise, the employer or the employee may terminate at any time

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 395

LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
the employment with just cause; or without just cause in the case of an employee by serving
written notice on the employer at least one month in advance, or in the case of an employer, by
serving such notice to the employee at least one month in advance or one-half month for every
year of service of the employee, whichever is longer, a fraction of at least six months being
considered as one whole year.
The employer, upon whom no such notice was served in case of termination of employment
without just cause, may hold the employee liable for damages.
The employee, upon whom no such notice was served in case of termination of employment without just
cause, shall be entitled to compensation from the date of termination of his employment in an amount
equivalent to his salaries or wages corresponding to the required period of notice.
There was, to repeat, clear albeit implied recognition of the licitness of term employment. RA
1787 also enumerated what it considered to be just causes for terminating an employment without a
definite period, either by the employer or by the employee without incurring any liability therefor.
Respondent Alegre's employment was terminated upon the expiration of his last contract with
Brent School on July 16, 1976 without the necessity of any notice. The advance written advice given the
Department of Labor with copy to said petitioner was a mere reminder of the impending expiration of his
contract, not a letter of termination, nor an application for clearance to terminate which needed the
approval of the Department of Labor to make the termination of his services effective. In any case, such
clearance should properly have been given, not denied.

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS

Page 396

It is in keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to rule that the status of regular employment attaches to the casual worker on the day immediately after the end of the first year of service.R. Perez filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter's office.: G. Tudtud among others. he became a regular employee regardless of any contract to the contrary. He was in fact a mainstay of the company. Butalid. his services were not terminated on 30 November 1992 but he continued working after that. 118695 Date: April 22. after a year of continuous work. however. Perez was given a notice of recall and a notice of termination at the same time. v. In the last week of May 1992. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. On 4 January 1994 the Labor Arbiter ruled that private respondent's employment was not regular and was merely coterminous with the MCDP project. The Labor Arbiter however found the dismissal to be groundless and granted Perez back wages from the time of termination up to the time of completion of the project. on 1 December 1992. Both parties appealed to the NLRC and on 17 November 1994 the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision on the status of Perez' employment and found him to be a regular employee. Hence.R. No. Held: Yes. NLRC G. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 397 . hence. Contrary to petitioner’s claim. Resisting his recall and termination. Tudtud to drive an engineer and her team to the job site but Perez refused because the car could only be used by the President of the company or by one specifically authorized by him. Issue: Whether private respondent was a regular employee of the company. On 23 December 1992 respondent Perez was summoned by Mr. affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal and ordered his reinstatement. CEDCO Vice President for Administration and Finance and after a confrontation with Ms. No. On 16 December 1992 respondent Perez was ordered by his supervisor Ms. Private respondent belonged to a work pool from which CEDCO drew its employees and assigned them to different projects. this petition raising the issue of whether the NLRC among others committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding private respondent a regular employee. Respondent: National Labor Relations Commission and Jaime Perez Ponente: J. Inc.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Alvin Pasicolan 2011-0089 Case Title: CEBU ENGINEERING and DEVELOPMENT CO. 1998 Petitioner: Cebu Engineering and Development Company. He was not hired for a specific project. according to the law. Bellosillo Facts: On November 1991 private respondent Jaime Perez was hired as clerk by Cebu Engineering and Development Company (CEDCO) and was assigned to the Metro Cebu Development Project (MCDP) II. he was reassigned to MCDP III effective 1 June 1992.

the petitioner was formally notified by the private respondent of the termination of his services on the ground of expiration of their contract. the Henry Lei Trucking Company. nor is it limited to a single undertaking or operation. The Labor Arbiter found for him and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. it was the prerogative of the trucking company to renew it or not as it saw fit. Even if ostensibly hired for a fixed period. even assuming that the original employment was probationary. 1991 Zosimo Cielo National Labor Relations Commission. It is plain that the petitioner was hired at the outset as a regular employee. The private respondent's intention is obvious. on January 22. conformably to Article 280 of the Labor Code. the petitioner should be considered a regular employee of the private respondent. The private respondent rests its case on the agreement and maintains that the labor laws are not applicable because the relations of the parties are governed by their voluntary stipulations. No. NLRC G. 1984.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Alvin Pasicolan 2011-0089 Case Title: G. The petitioner claimed he started working for the private respondent on June 16. Issue: Whether the petitioner was a regular employee of the company. 1984. The contract having expired. which held that the petitioner's employment had expired under a valid contract. Cruz Facts: The petitioner is a truck driver who claims he was illegally dismissed by the private respondent. as evidenced by the mimeographed form of the agreement and of the affidavit. There is no question that the purpose behind these individual contracts was to evade the application of the labor laws by making it appear that the drivers of the trucking company were not its regular employees. and having done so for more than six months had acquired the status of a regular employee. The agreement was supposed to have commenced on June 30.R. Held: Yes. No. The agreement in question was null and void ab initio to prevent circumvention of the employee's right to be secure in his tenure. crops and other cargo for the Philippine Packing Corporation. he could no longer be dismissed except for lawful cause. The factual finding of the Labor Arbiter that the petitioner was a regular employee of the private respondent was correct. It appears from the records that all the drivers of the private respondent have been hired on a fixed contract basis. 1984. At any rate. 1984. As such. The private respondent is engaged in the trucking business as a hauler of cattle. Soon thereafter. and to end on December 31. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 398 . and continuously because the work is not seasonal. however. On December 22. Henry Lei and/or Henry Lei Trucking J. the petitioner filed his complaint. This business requires the services of drivers. 1985. 78693 January 28. On appeal. the Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner had completed more than six month's service with the trucking company and so had acquired the status of a regular employee at the time of his dismissal.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: CIELO v. the decision was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission.R.

Petitioners further argue that private respondent was only engaged for a specific task. with respect to the activity in which he is employed. he is a regular employee pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code. No. 108889 July 30. the Labor Arbiter found that private respondent was merely a casual employee and accordingly dismissed his complaint.” Issue: Whether respondent is a regular employee of the company. and (2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service. the nature of private respondent’s work as a general utility man was definitely necessary and desirable to petitioners’ business of trading copra and charcoal regardless of the length of time he worked therein.R. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 399 . was not paid his full salary but was merely given cash advances. he filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of regular salaries against petitioners. petitioners employed David Empeynado as a general utility man.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: HIGHWAY COPRA TRADERS v. petitioners informed him not to report for work starting January 12. No. and David Empaynado J. and wait until he is re-hired which never happened. the services of an employee are necessary and desirable in the employer’s usual business only for the period of time it takes to complete the project. 1998 Highway Copra Traders and/or Gerson Dulang (owner-operator)/ Luzviminda Dulang National Labor Relations Commission. whether continuous or broken. NLRC G. the completion of which resulted in the cessation of his employment. Martinez Facts: On May 15. The factual milieu of this case undisputedly shows that private respondent was a regular employee of petitioners’ copra business. petitioners elevated the case via petition for certiorari. Held: Yes. Article 280 of the Labor Code describes a regular employee as one who is either (1) engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Petitioners principally ascribe grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC for declaring private respondent a regular employee and thus. on December 16." Article 280 of the Labor Code contemplates an activity which is not commonly or habitually performed or such type of work which is not done on a daily basis but only for a specific duration of time or until completion in which case. 1986. When their motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC. 1987. After hearing. On appeal. They argue that private respondent performed tasks that were menial and not in any way connected with petitioners’ copra business and that he was hired only on a “per need basis. By "specific project or undertaking. When he sought full payment thereof. This is not correct.Cagayan de Oro. however. 1987. In this case. Private respondent.R. As such. Such circumstance does not obtain in this case. entitled to unpaid wages and other monetary benefits. Thus.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Alvin Pasicolan 2011-0089 Case Title: G. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

Art. 1983. Inc. 106331 March 9. subject to renewal by mutual consent of the parties at least thirty days before its expiration. she was invited by Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro City to be the chairperson of its pharmacology department. INC.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS. The contract of employment provided for a term of one year from the date of its execution on March 19.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Alvin Pasicolan 2011-0089 Case Title: G. Paz Wong replaced Quintia as head of the Research and Development department and two days later. 1990.R. prevailed upon her to stay.” hence this petition. received an inter-office memorandum officially terminating her services because of the expiration of her contract of employment. charging petitioner with illegal dismissal and praying that petitioner be ordered to reinstate private respondent and to pay her full back wages and moral damages. 280. 1987. When Quintia’s contract was about to expire. NLRC G. Indeed. employed private respondent Virginia Camacho Quintia as Medical Director of its Research and Development department. the completion or termination of which ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 400 . Pio Castillo. On July 10. assuring her of security of tenure and because of this assurance.R. No. . 280 is “clearly contrary to this Court’s decisions. an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking. Regular and casual employment.” that private respondent’s tasks are really not necessary and desirable to the usual business of petitioner and that that there is “clearly no legal or factual basis to support respondent NLRC’s reliance on the absence of a new written contract as indicating that respondent Quintia became a regular employee. the Labor Arbiter found private respondent to have been illegally dismissed. 1986. and Dr. Petitioner contends among others that the NLRC’s reliance on Art.. On January 21. Inc. Virginia Camacho Quinta J. she remained in the employ of petitioner. the president and general manager. No. after her contract expired on March 19. However. 1984. she declined the offer of Xavier University. 1998 International Pharmaceuticals.. private respondent filed a complaint.The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties. Mendoza Facts: Petitioner International Pharmaceuticals. In a decision rendered on December 18. National Labor Relations Commission Fourth Division. v. He held that private respondent was a regular employee and not a project employee as provided in the Labor Code. Issue: Whether private respondent become a regular employee after the expiration of the written contract? Whether or not the one-year service of respondent made her into a regular employee of the petitioner? Held: Yes on both counts.

Inc. whether such service is continuous or broken. voluntarily and knowingly by the parties. the NLRC held that the written contract between petitioner and private respondent was valid. In Brent School. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 401 . 1984 on the basis of the facts pointed out by the NLRC. Zamora. it must respect the security of tenure of the employee in accordance with Art. He contends that Art. after its expiration on March 18. That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service. as the petitioner had decided to continue her services. But the NLRC precisely upheld the validity of the contract in accordance with the Brent School case. 280.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided. Indeed. 1984. Petitioner’s ground is that the ruling of the NLRC is contrary to the Brent School decision. What is in issue is whether private respondent did not become a regular employee after the expiration of the written contract on March 18. 280 should not be so interpreted as to render employment contracts with a fixed term invalid. it was held that although work done under a contract is necessary and desirable in relation to the usual business of the employer. shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists. simply because there was in the beginning a contract of employment with a fixed term. a contract for a fixed period may nonetheless be made so long as it is entered into freely. v. Applying this ruling to the case at bar. but. the validity of the written contract is not in issue in this case.

Romeo Guevara. Jose Cabral.: Date: Petitioner: Respondent: Ponente: MERCADO v. Rosa Mercado. In the present Petition for certiorari. Incorporated J. 1991 Fortunado Mercado. The NLRC ruled in favor of private respondents affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter.R. Aurora L. Petitioners questioned respondent Labor Arbiter's finding that they were not regular and permanent employees of private respondent Aurora Cruz while private respondents questioned the award of financial assistance granted by respondent Labor Arbiter.. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondents and held that petitioners were not regular and permanent workers of the private respondents. through Spouses Fortunato Mercado. and Sto.R. NLRC G. Brigida Alcantara. Petitioners contend that respondent Labor Arbiter and respondent NLRC erred when both ruled that petitioners are not regular and permanent employees of private respondents based on the terms and conditions of their hiring. Lucia Mercado. and Rosa Mercado. 79869 September 5. No. persons who take charge in supplying the number of workers needed by owners of various farms. Cruz. Anita Mercado. Fortunado Mercado Jr. Asuncion Guevara. petitioners have become regular and permanent employees. No. Private respondent Aurora Cruz in her answer to petitioners' complaint denied that said petitioners were her regular employees and instead averred that she engaged their services. petitioners seek the reversal of the above-mentioned rulings. Padilla Facts: Petitioners alleged in their complaint that they were agricultural workers utilized by private respondents in all the agricultural phases of work on the 7 1/2 hectares of ace land and 10 hectares of sugar land owned by the latter. even assuming said employment were seasonal. Issue: Whether petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers. Guadalupe Paguio. Both parties filed their appeal with the National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC). for said findings are contrary to the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code. that is. Niño Realty.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Alvin Pasicolan 2011-0089 Case Title: G. Emerlita Mercado. continued for so many years such that. They submit that petitioners' employment. with the modification of the deletion of the award for financial assistance to petitioners. Romeo Mercado and Leon Santillan National Labor Relations Commission Third Division Labor Arbiter Luciano Aquino. Sr. for the nature of the terms and conditions of their hiring reveal that they were required to perform phases of agricultural work for a definite period of time after which their services would be available to any other farm owner. They were all allegedly dismissed on April 1979 from their employment. by express provision of Article 280 of the Labor Code as amended. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 402 . RABIII. Sr. Marina Mercado. but only to do a particular phase of agricultural work necessary in rice production and/or sugar cane production. their "mandarols".. Spouses Francisco De Borja and Leticia De Borja. Antonio Mercado. Juliana Cabral.

The termination of their employment cannot and should not constitute an illegal dismissal. seasonal employees. therefore. the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW LSSL CASE DIGESTS Page 403 . A careful examination of the facts reveals that the findings of the Labor Arbiter in the case are ably supported by evidence. no circumstance that would warrant a reversal of the questioned decision of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission. to use the correct term. therefore. petitioners being project employees. their employment legally ends upon completion of the project or the season. or. The contention of petitioners that the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code should have been applied in their case presents an opportunity to clarify the afore-mentioned provision of law. There is.LABOR STANDARDS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Held: No. Clearly. or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season as in the present case. A