G.R. No.

151966 July 8, 2005

JPL MARKETING PROMOTIONS, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NOEL GONZALES, RAMON ABESA III
and FAUSTINO ANINIPOT, Respondents.
Facts: petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of recruitment and placement of workers. While
respondents Noel Gonzales, Ramon Abesa III and Faustino Aninipot were employed by JPL as merchandisers. They
were assigned in different establishments in Naga City and Daet, Camarines Norte ass attendants to the display of
California Marketing Corporation. Upon the stop of operation of CMC, on August 13, 1996 JPL notified private
respondents and advised them to wait for further notice for their transfer with other clients. But on October 17, 1996,
private respondents Abesa and Gonzales filed before the National Labor Relations Commission Regional Arbitration
Branch complaints for illegal dismissal praying for separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and
payment for moral damages. Aninipot filed a similar case.
Labor Arbiter found that private respondents applied to other clients even before the lapse of the six months period.
They unilaterally severed their relation with JPL and they cannot charge JPL with illegal dismissal but for separation
pay. Claims for 13th month pay and service incentive leave was also denied since they were paid way above the
applicable minimum wage during their employment. On appeal, NLRC agreed that the six-month period had not yet
expired and the stoppage of CMCs operation was beyond the control of JPL. However, NLRC awarded separation
pay, service incentive leave and 13th month pay counted from the first day of employment up to the finality of the said
judgment. CA affirmed in toto the decision.
Issue: Whether or not private respondents are entitled to separation pay, 13 month pay and service incentive leave
pay; granting that they are, what should be the reckoning point for computing said awards?
Held: there was no dismissal in the present case. What the private respondents received was a mere notification of
the termination of contract with CMC. Article 286 of LC allows the bona fide suspension of the operation of a
business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, wherein an employee/employees are placed on
the so-called "floating status." And since JPL did not terminate their employment, and it was admitted that private
respondents applied to other establishment within the six-month period and therefore severing their relation with JPL,
they are not entitled with separation pay.
Although they are not entitled with separation pay, private respondents should be paid of 13th month and service
incentive leave pay. It cannot be said that their salary is beyond the minimum wage should be deemed the 13th
month pay and service incentive leave pay. The difference is not equivalent to the benefits contemplated by law.
When it comes to the computation, for the 13th month pay should properly begin from the first day of employment,
the service incentive leave pay should start a year after commencement of service, for it is only then that the
employee is entitled to the said benefit. And both should only be up to August 15, 1996 or the last day they work with
JPL.

STARPAPER VS. SIMBOL

STARPAPER VS. SIMBOL

G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006
Petitioners: Star Paper Corporation, Josephine Ongsitco, and Sebastian Chua
Respondents: Ronaldo V. Simbol, Wilfreda N. Comia, and Lorna E. Estrella
Ponente: J. Puno

Facts:
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 03, 2004
in CA-G.R. SP No. 73477 reversing the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
which affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. The following facts were presented:
(a) The respondents were all regular employees of the company;
(b) On October 27, 1993, Simbol was hired by the company. He met Alma Dayrit, also an employee of
the company. He married her on June 27, 1998. Prior to the marriage, Ongsitco advised the couple that
should they decide to get married, one of them should resign pursuant to a company policy promulgated
in 1995. Simbol resigned on June 20, 1998.
(c) On February 5, 1997, Comia was hired by the company. She met Howard Comia, a co-employee
whom she married on June 1, 2000. Ongsitco likewise reminded them pursuant to the aforementioned
company policy. Comia resigned on June 30, 2000.
(d) Simbol and Comia alleged that they did not resign voluntarily; they were compelled to resign in view of
an illegal company policy.
(e) On July 29, 1994, Estrella was hired by the company. She met Luisito Zuniga, also a co-worker,
whom petitioners claimed to be a married man who got Estrella impregnated. The company allegedly
could have terminated her services due to immorality but she opted to resign on December 21, 1999.
(f) Estrella alleged that she had a relationship with co-worker Zuniga who misrepresented himself as a
married but a separated man. After he got her pregnant, she discovered that he was not
separated. Thus, she severed her relationship with him to avoid dismissal due to company policy.
(g) On November 30, 1999, Estrella met an accident and had to recuperate for twenty-one (21) days as
advised by the doctor of the Orthopaedic Hospital. On December 21, 1999 but she found out that her
name was on hold at the gate. She was directed to the personnel office and handed a memorandum that
stated that she was being dismissed for immoral conduct. Estrella was asked to submit an explanation
but she was dismissed nonetheless. She resigned because she was in dire need of money and
resignation could give her the thirteenth month pay.
On May 31, 2001, Labor Arbiter Del Rosario dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
On January, 11, 2002, NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
On August 8, 2002, NLRC denied the respondents Motion for Reconsideration through a Resolution.

On August 3, 2004, the CA reversed the NLRC decision and declared that:
(a) The petitioners dismissal from employment was illegal:
(b) The private respondents are ordered to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions without loss
of seniority rights with full backwages from the time of their dismissal until actual reinstatement; and
(c) The private respondents are to pay petitioners attorneys fees amounting to 10% of the award and the
cost of the suit.
Hence, this petition.
Issues:
The issues raised by this petition are:
(1) Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the subject 1995 policy/ regulation is violative of the
constituional rights towards marriage and the family of employees and of Article 136 of the Labor Code:
and
(2) Whether or not the respondents resignations were far from voluntary.
Held:
(1) No. The CA did not err in holding that the subject 1995 policy/ regulation is violative of the
constitutional rights towards marriage and the family of employees and or Article 136 of the Labor Code:

(ARTICLE 136. Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a
condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or
to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned
or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee
merely by reason of her marriage.)