You are on page 1of 17

G & M Philippines, Inc., vs. Romil V.

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 162308 November 22, 2006
Illegal Dismissal, Labor Law, Overseas Employment
Respondent Romil V. Cuambot was deployed to Saudi Arabia as a car body builder with
petitioner G & M Philippines, Inc., a duly licensed placement and recruitment agency. On a twoyear employment contract, he worked with the Al Waha Workshop. However, respondent did not
finish his contract and returned to the Philippines barely six months later. Upon returning, he
immediately filed before the NLRC a complaint for unpaid wages, withheld salaries, refund of
plane ticket and repatriation bond, which was later amended to include illegal dismissal, claim
for the unexpired portion of his employment contract, actual, exemplary and moral damages, and
attorney’s fees.
Respondent Cuambot alleged that at the Al Waha Workshop where he worked, he was subjected
to inhumane and unbearable working conditions. Except for a meal allowance of 100 Riyals a
month, he was not paid his monthly salary of 1,200 Riyals. And he was required to render six (6)
hours of overtime work daily, except Friday, without overtime pay; he was also seriously insulted
by his employer every time he demanded for his salary, and some of the letters sent to him by his
family were withheld by his employer.
He thus filed a petition for payment of the unpaid salaries including interests, until the same will
be fully paid.
Petitioner G & M insisted that respondent was religiously paid his salaries as they fell due. After
working for a little over seven months, respondent pleaded with his employer to be allowed to
return home since there were family problems he had to settle personally. Respondent even
submitted a resignation letter. To support such claim, petitioner submitted in evidence copies of
seven payslips duly authenticated by the Philippine Labor Attaché in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Respondent countered that his signatures in the purported payslips were forged. He also stated
that he was never given a copy of the contract of employment. To counter the allegation of
forgery, petitioner claimed that there was a great possibility that respondent had changed his
signature while abroad so that he could file a complaint for illegal dismissal upon his return. The
argument that the stroke and handwriting on the payslips was written by one and the same person
is mere conjecture, as respondent could have requested someone, to prepare the resignation letter
for him. Petitioner further pointed out that respondent has different signatures, not only in the
pleadings submitted before the Labor Arbiter, but also in respondents’ personal documents.
On January 30, 1997, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent Cuambot, finding unreliable
the G & M's evidence of Cuambot's alleged signature in the payslips which was similar to the
handwritings in the payslips and the handwritings in the purported resignation letter of the
Cuambot. In an appeal to the NLRC, the latter remanded the case to its origin for referral to a
government agency that can conduct calligraphy examination on the questioned documents.
The case was then re-raffled to another Labor Arbiter, and this time, the complaint was dismissed
for lack of merit. The new Labor Arbiter said the respondent failed to substantiate his claim of
poor working conditions and long hours of employment. The fact that he executed a handwritten
resignation letter was enough evidence of the fact that he voluntarily resigned from work.
Respondent also failed to submit any evidence to refute the payslips duly signed and
authenticated by the labor attaché in Saudi Arabia, inasmuch as their probative value cannot be
impugned by mere self-serving allegations. The Labor Arbiter concluded that as between the oral
allegations of workers that they were not paid monetary benefits and the documentary evidence
presented by employer, the latter should prevail.

A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts.” The Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not the employee voluntarily resigned from employment or was illegally dismissed? RULING: We find in respondent’s favor. and just and humane conditions of work.KASAPIAN NG MANGGA-GAWANG PINAGKAISA-RFM (KAMPINAFLU-KMU) andSANDIGAN AT UGNAYAN NG MANGGAGAWANG PINAGKAISA-SFI (SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU) . The NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. a visual examination of the questioned signatures would instantly reveal significant differences in the handwriting. As correctly noted by the CA.” Even a cursory perusal of the resignation letter and the handwritten pay slips will readily show that they were written by only one person. to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting “with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. that if respondent had wanted to have the documents endorsed to the NBI or the PNP. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court. among others. RFM CORPORATION-FLOUR DIVISION and SFI FEEDS DIVISION v.” and to “assure the rights of workers to self-organization. although helpful in the examination of forged documents because of the technical procedure involved in the analysis. collective bargaining. the latter reversed the ruling of the NLRC. race or creed. On a petition for certiorari before the CA. alleging that the Labor Arbiter failed to consider the genuineness of the signature which appears in the purported resignation as well as those that appeared in the seven payslips. the opinions of handwriting experts. promote full employment. he should have insisted that the documents be examined by a handwriting expert of the government. by itself. He insisted that these documents should have been endorsed to the National Bureau of Investigation Questioned Documents Division or the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for calligraphy examination. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. in order to give effect to the policy of the State to “afford protection to labor. the rule is that all doubts in the implementation and the interpretation of the Labor Code shall be resolved in favor of labor. Indeed. No less than Section 22. It also stressed that the parties had earlier agreed to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on record. Thus. and regulate the relations between workers and employers. security of tenure. It held that the questioned documents could not be endorsed to the agency concerned since mere photocopies had been submitted in evidence. That the petitioner failed to submit the original copies of the payslips and the resignation letter raises doubts as to the veracity of its claim that they were actually signed by the respondent.Respondent appealed the decision to the NLRC. According to the appellate court. ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex. respondent was estopped from assailing the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. are not binding upon the courts.

invoking the CBA provision. RFM maintains. 2009 Carpio Morales. the daily-paid employees must be paid their regular salaries on the holidays which are so declared by the national government. it should have been so incorporated therein. however. he earns what he should earn. In other words. RULING If the terms of a CBA are clear and have no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. his holiday pay. if petitioner and respondents intended the provision in question to cover payment only during holidays falling on work or weekdays. The Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) declared that the provision of the CBA is clear. a domestic corporation entered into collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the Kasapian ng Manggagawang PinagkaisaRFM (KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU) and Sandigan at Ugnayanng Manggagawang Pinagkaisa-SFI (SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU). Holiday pay is a legislated benefit enacted as part of the Constitutional imperative that the State shall afford protection to labor. No. December 31which fell on a Sunday was declared by the national government as a special holiday. That is settled. ruling in favor of KAMPINAFLU-KMU and SUMAPI-NAFLU-KMU and ordered RFM to pay their salaries. they are obliged to comply with its provisions. The Court of Appeals(CA) affirmed the decision. hence. November 1and December 31 if declared as special holidays by the national government. as in the herein questioned provision. although the worker is forced to take a rest.G. averring that December 31. R.Under the CBA. drawing the parties to submit the same for voluntary arbitration. Respondent unions thus claimed payment of their members salaries. the literal meaning thereof shall prevail. Indeed. J. RFM refused the claims for payment. that the parties failed to foresee a situation where ." The CBA is the law between the parties. As such. FACTS Petitioner RFM Corporation. ISSUE Whether or not the employees are entitled to the questioned salary according to the provision of the CBA. RFM agreed to make payment to all daily paid employees on Black Saturday. regardless of whether they fall on rest days. 162324 February 4. that is. 2000 was not compensable as it was a rest day. During the first year of the effectivity of the CBAs in 2000. Its purpose is not merely "to prevent diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions. The controversy resulted in a deadlock.

or by stipulation or by provision of law. Wang. ISSUE: Whether or not there is theory of imputed knowledge between the principal and the agent HELD: too is a misapplication. There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the 2year employment contract extension. Such employment was made with the assistance of Taiwanese broker Edmund Wang. the act of its principal extending [Divina’s] employment contract necessarily bound it. She alleges that she was underpaid and was jailed for three months in Taiwan. denied all the allegations. v. a misapplication of the theory of imputed knowledge. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot. their assigns. it should be interpreted in favor of labor. INC. 2006 FACTS: Respondent Divina Montehermozo is a domestic helper deployed to Taiwan by Sunace International Management Services (Sunace) under a 12-month contract. Hence.R. it cannot be said to be privy thereto. After the expiration of the contract. Sunace. be imputed to its agent Sunace. she filed a complaint against Sunace. As such.the special holiday would fall on a rest day. Montehermozo continued her employment with her Taiwanese employer Hang Rui Xiong for another 2 years. the filing of this appeal. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION et al. except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature. [Sunace] cannot profess ignorance of such an extension as obviously. it and its “owner” cannot be held solidarily liable for any of Divina’s claims arising from the 2-year employment extension. Ruling of the Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Montehermozo and found Sunace liable thereof. Sunace. and her Taiwanese employer before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). . The Court is not persuaded. therefore. The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent. on the other hand. not the other way around. 161757 January 25. No. The Labor Code specifically enjoins that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor. She further alleges that the 2-year extension of her employment contract was with the consent and knowledge of Sunace. The National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision. to the principal. G. Contracts take effect only between the parties. As agent of its foreign principal. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES. As the New Civil Code provides. When Montehermozo returned to the Philippines. employer Xiong. and heirs.

to enhance employment generation inthe countryside through industrial dispersal.The Commission shall have the following powers and functions: (d) Toreview regional wage levels set by the Regional Tripartite Wages and ProductivityBoards to determine if these are in accordance with prescribed guidelines and nationaldevelopment plans. Banker’s Council in a letter inquiry to NWPC requested for ruling to seek exemptionfrom coverage of the wage order since the members bank are paying more than theregular wage. Metropolitan Bank vs NWPC (2007) G. (f) To review plans and programs of the Regional Tripartite Wagesand Productivity Boards to determine whether these are consistent with national development plans.R.RTWPB in return clarified that establishments in Region 2 are Issue: WON the wage order is void thus it has no legal effect and the RTWPB acted inexcess of its jurisdiction. R02-03 (WageOrder). Cagayan (RTWPB).A. expansion and growth. by virtue of Republic Act No.The powers of NWPC are enumerated in ART.Tuguegarao. Per Section 13 of the Wage Order. any party aggrieved by the WageOrder may file an appeal with the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC)through the RTWPB within 10 calendar days from the publication of the Wage Order.otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization Act. In another letter inquiry. to guarantee the rights oflabor to its just share in the fruits of production.1995 and took effect on January 1. No. and to allow business and industryreasonable returns on investment. thus applies. Powers and Functions of theCommission.The Wage Order was published in a newspaper of general circulation on December 2. Wage Order No. 121. Petitioner. and pursuant to the separabilityclause of the Wage Order. Metrobank askedfor the interpretation of the applicability of the wage order. Article 1924 of the New Civil Code provides The agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent. 6727 (R. NWPC referred it to RTWPB. Its Implementing Rules were approved onFebruary 14.Furthermore. dealing directly with third persons. NWPC replied that the member banks are covered by the wage order anddoes not fall with the exemptible categories. ET AL. Section 1 is declared valid with respect to employees earningthe prevailing minimum wage rate. Upon effectivity of this Wage Order. 6727). 1996. the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board. 6727 declared it a policy of the State to rationalize the fixing of minimumwages and to promote productivity-improvement and gain-sharing measures to ensurea decent standard of living for the workers and their families. Held:Section 1. as Sunace correctly points out. after the termination of the original employment contract. there was an implied revocation of its agency relationship with its foreign principal when. as follows:Section 1. 1996. R02-03 is void insofar as it grants a wage increase toemployees earning more than the minimum wage rate. issued Wage Order No. the foreign principal directly negotiated with Divina and entered into a new and separate employment contract in Taiwan.R. No. (g) To exercise technical and administrative supervision over theRegional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards.: . LAGON. 144322 Facts:On October 1995. SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST and SONNY L. Region II. .00 daily. MENDOZA. Respondents. regardless of the status of employment aregranted an across-the-board increase of P15. v. all employees/workersin the private sector throughout Region II.. ROLDAN LOPEZ. J.A. NLRC.

the Court noted that the case involves factual disputes decided by the trial courts. among other things. Whether or not the free board and lodging. electricity. against the employer. the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee.The LA viewed private respondent's act of going home as an act of indifference when petitioners decided to prohibit overtime work. electricity. and food enjoyed by them could not be included in the computation of their wages because these were given without their written consent. The NLRC and CA affirmed and ruled against the employer. and must affirm the ruling that they are regular employees. however. had to cut down on the overtime work of the employees. LABOR LAW: Allowable deductions from employees wages. the LA found that private respondents were underpaid. Further. The employer reasoned that the employees were project employees. The case was brought before the Labor Arbiter. necessary and desirable in the business or trade of the employer. ISSUE: 1. With regard to the underpayment of wages. much less show how they arrived at their valuations. whose decisions the Court cannot disturb. electricity. and 1999.Mere availment is not sufficient to allow deductions from employees wages. Settled is the fact that decisions by labor arbiters. It ruled that the free board and lodging. These requirements.At any rate. due to economic constraints. a four-pronged test must be completed: proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. the employer reasoned that the employees were actually paid above the minimum wage. The LA opined that private respondents were regular employees because they were repeatedly hired by petitioners and they performed activities which were usual. facilities must be charged at reasonable value. 1998. since the allowances for snacks. water. when respondent-employees asked for overtime work. second. non-payment of 13th month pay. found that petitioners were not liable for illegal dismissal. Lagon. . water. Thus. on a complaint for illegal dismissal. have not been met in this case. and transportation should be included in the wages. project employees are entitled to the minimum wage. 1997. they would have to go home at their own expense and that they would not be given any more time nor be allowed to stay in their quarters.FACTS: Respondents were supposedly employed by petitioner as project employees in 11996. Preliminarily. The LA. due to their expertise. They were paid less than the minimum wage for the four periods of their employment. lodging house. Whether or not the employees were entitled to minimum wage 2. cannot be disturbed and are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence. Lagon had to refuse them. the employer. It also failed to provide proof of the employees written authorization. since they are not among the exclusions enumerated in the Labor Code Implementing Rules. and told them that if they insist. In any case. however. On the issue of whether the facilities should be included as wages. SLL failed to present any company policy or guideline showing that provisions for meals and lodging were part of the employees salaries. water. since they were employed for a specific undertaking. and food enjoyed by the employees should be included in the computation of the wages HELD: The petition is denied. and thus were not regular employees entitled to minimum wage. it is not even clear whetherprivaterespondents actually enjoyed said facilities. and finally. Thus it cannot decide on the issue of whether the employees are project or regular employees. During their 4th employment. non-payment of wages.

Filed complaint against Becmen and Rajab & Silsilah Co (principal in Saudi) claiming death and insurance benefits. Mar 1999 – Jasmin’s body was exhumed by NBI. puncture wounds. intra-muscular hemorrhage at the anterior chest. Cuaresmas received from OWWA the following: 50k death benefits. Had already received their benefits from OWWA. Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion v Sps. and Jaime Ortiz (Pres. found Jasmin a victim of compensable work-connected criminal aggression.she died. Summary of Rulings    LArb – dismissed for lack of merit. later reduced the award to $8k (monthly salary x remaining contract period) Issues   WON entitled to insurance – NO WON death is compensable – NO . Toxicology report tested negative ffor nonvolatile. Claim that Jasmin’s death was work-related having occurred at the employer’s premises. and abrasions on the labia minora. White Falcon Services. metallic poison and insecticides. They deny liability since the Sps. rib fracture. assuming she would survive until 60 yo). June 1998 . 10k medical reimbursement. and impleaded White Falcon as the new agency of Rajab. Later. giving credence to Al Birk medical report NLRC – reversed. their entitled to iqama insurance. for $247/mo. 50k loss of life. lacerated wounds and abrasions on her left and right ears. Jessie Fajardo. both agencies are solidarily liable to pay $113. Nov 1999 – Sps.Petition is DENIED. found her dead inside her dormitory room with mouth foaming and smelling of poison. Becmen and Rajab claim that Jasmin committed suicide and relied on the medical report of Al Birk. Medical report of Al-Birk Hosp stated that the cause of death was poisoning – halt in blood circulation. Cuaresma (in behalf of Jasmin) v White Falcon and Becmen Facts: Jan 1997 – Jasmin was deployed by Becmen to serve as assistant nurse in Al-Birk Hospital in Saudi under a 3 year contract. abrasions and hematoma on her thigh and legs. The City Health Officer of Cabanatuan found that Jasmin died under violent circumstances not poisoning – abrasions at her inner lip and gums. later reduced to $80k CA – affirmed. respiratory system and brain damage due to poisoning from unknown substance. Sep 1998 – her body was repatriated to Manila. co-worker. Becmen manifested that Rajab had terminated their agency. Sps. lacerated wounds and hematoma (contusions) on her elbows. Sps. Of White Falcon) Sps. compensatory damages amounting to $103k which is the sum of her monthly salary 35 years (she was 25 yo when she died. 20k funeral expenses. Simplicio and Mila Cuaresma (in behalf of daughter Jasmin).

6. 8. plastic surgery charges and lenses. Entry visa fees will be shared equally between her and her employer. and which the labor tribunals and appellate court granted variably in the guise of compensatory damages. therefore not compensable (i. public order or morals have the force of law between the contracting parties. The indemnity benefit due her at the end of her service will be calculated as per labor laws of KSA. the agreement does not include provisions for insurance. .00) monthly salary. What an employee does on free time is beyond the employer’s sphere of inquiry. Free living accommodations. Transportation to and from work. The terms and conditions of Jasmin’s 1996 Employment Agreement which she and her employer Rajab freely entered into constitute the law between them. Thus.  WON death was by suicide – NO WON Becmen and Falcon are liable – YES. as well as for her vacation at the end of each twenty four-month service. 1. solidary liability Ratio 1 NOT entitled to insurance. As a rule.e. Thirty days paid vacation leave with round trip tickets to Manila after twenty four-months of continuous service. fees for Iqama issuance. public policy. Court stated that the foreign employer cannot be expected to ensure her safety even while she is not on duty. death or other benefits that the Cuaresmas seek to recover. Jasmin was not on duty but at her dormitory room on personal time. 7. sponsorship transfer and other liabilities shall be borne by her. 4. 5. foreign employer is not obliged to provide her these benefits. An examination of said employment agreement shows that it provides for no other monetary or other benefits/privileges than the following: 1. renewal. Eight days public holidays per year. Free air tickets to KSA at the start of her contract and to the Philippines at the end thereof. and medical treatment obtained outside of KSA.300 rials (or US$247. except for optical and dental operations. 9. 3. Absence for provisions on social security and other benefits does not make the contract infirm under PH laws since under Saudi law. or for accident. 2 Death NOT WORK RELATED. but the exit/re-entry visa fees.. stipulations in an employment contract not contrary to statutes. 2. replacement. Free medical treatment. not liable for lost earnings) At time of death. passport renewal.

and observe honesty and good faith. act with justice. tender age or other handicap. promote full employement. mental weakness. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. and have the primary obligation to protect the rights and ensure the welfare of our OFWs. Art 21 CC – any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. Rajab. The Agencies prioritized their corporate interest over that of Jasmin. whether in the country or overseas. Art 19 CC – every person must. both licensed recruitment agencies. Instead. Court stated that the parents have done all that was within their power to investigate Jasmin’s case on their own. the courts must be vigilant for his protection. give everyone his due. property or other relations. 3 Jasmin DID NOT COMMIT SUICIDE Court cannot subscribe to the idea that Jasmin committed suicide while halfway into her employment contract. Based on past OFW experiences. All labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer. Filipina’s do not simply commit suicide but rather endure. Recruitment agencies are expected to extend assistance to deployed OFWs. Whether employed locally or overseas. Their report is contradicted by the City Health Officer and by NBI. 4 Rajab. ensure equal work opportunities. contract stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. RA 8042 Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act provides that the State shall at all times uphold the dignity of its citizens. It should have been them who sought justice for Jasmin. be the first to come the rescue of our distressed OFWs. ignorance. This is in keeping with the Consti provision for the State to afford protection to labor. Becmen and Falcon’s acts and omissions are against public policy because they undermine and subvert the interest and general welfare of our OFWs. Even the toxicology report tested negative for poisonous substances.The dormitory room also cannot be considered as “employer’s premises”. Art 24 CC – in all contractual. All these show that Jasmin was manhandled and possibly raped prior to death. The rights and interest of distressed overseas Filipinos are adequately protected and safeguarded. White Falcon solidarily liable for moral and exemplary damages Court admonished Becmen and Falcon for simply dismissing Jasmin’s case as one of suicide instead of fighting for her rights. Becmen. This is beyond human comprehension for a 25 yo Filipina especially since suicide is contrary to Christian belief. it was the parents who requested an autopsy in the Ph to confirm the Saudi report. Court cited Filipina’s resilience despite abuse and maltreatment. good customs or public policy shall compensate the later for the damage. Becmen and Falcon. Court also found that Saudi police and autopsy reports are patently inconclusive. all Fil workers enjoy the protective mantel of PH labor and social laws. . indigence. when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence. miserably failed to abide by RA 8042.

for example. the corporate officers and directors and partners are also solidarily liable. RULING: NO. This is meanth to assure the aggrieved worker of immediate and sufficient payment. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)164 SCRA 671 (1988) FACTS: Marilyn Abucay. Awarded P2. like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker. as found by the labor arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC and as she herself hasimpliedly admitted. a traffic operator of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. The fact that she has worked with the PLDT for more than a decade. taking into consideration her long years of service to the company whereby she had undoubtedlycontributed to the success of the company. was required regardless of the nature or degree of the ground proved. The separation pay. should be taken against her .NOTE: Marilyn Abucay had served in the company for 10 years. We hold that the grant of separation pay in the case at bar is unjustified. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) v. she must be awarded 10 monthsseparation pay for every year of her service. Private employment agencies are held jointly and severally liable with the foreign-basd employer for any violation of the recruitment agreement or contract of employement. if it is to be consideredat all. CA decision set aside. the employer may not be required togive the dismissed employee separation pay. ISSUE: Whether or not the award of separation pay for the private respondent is just. Falcon’s assumption of Becmen’s liability does not absolve Becmen. when it was considered warranted. Despite of her being dismissed for cause. be it mere inefficiency or something graver like immorality ordishonesty.800. Separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where theemployee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moralcharacter. Grant of moral damages to the employee by reason of misconduct on the part of the employer is sanctioned by Art 2219 (10) CC. or financial assistance. habitual intoxication or an offense involvingmoral turpitude. shewas found guilty as charged and accordingly separated from the service. If the agency is a juridical being.5M as moral damages. She went to the Ministry of Labor andEmployment claiming she had been illegally removed. (as contendedby PLDT) the labor arbiter (from NLRC) in his decision ruled that the complainant (herein private respondent)must be given one month pay for every year of service as financial assistance. Cuaresmas are entitled to moral damages for which Becmen and Falcon are solidarily liable. The rule embodied in the Labor Code is that a person dismissed for cause as defined therein is notentitled to separation pay. P250k as exemplary damages. Thus. it is not unlikely that he will commit a similar offense in his next employment because hethinks he can expect a like leniency if he is again found out. Investigated and heard.00 in considerationof her promise to facilitate approval of their applications for telephone installation. was accused bytwo complainants of having demanded and received from them the total amount of P3. or whatever other name it is called. Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands areclean and their motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor. If the employee who steals from the company is granted separation pay even as he isvalidly dismissed.As a result of their misconduct. The labor arbiter finds the same asequitable. on theground of social justice. The private respondent hasbeen dismissed for dishonesty. This kind of misplaced compassion is not going to dolabor in general any good as it will encourage the infiltration of its ranks by those who do not deserve theprotection and concern of the Constitution.

Simbol | Puno Case Digest Star Paper Corporation vs. one of them should resign to preserve the policy stated above. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ruled in favor of petitioner. Simbol 487 SCRA 228 FACTS: Petitioner was the employer of the respondents. Petitioners contend that their policy will apply only when one employee marries a co-employee. Under the policy of Star Paper the employees are: 1. one male and another female) developed a friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married. then a Production Helper in the Selecting Department. The respondents allege that they were forced to resign as a result of the implementation of the said assailed company policy. up to the 3rd degree of relationship. Estrella on the other hand had a relationship with a co-employee resulting to her pregnancy on the belief that such was separated. In case of two of our employees (singles. who married Howard Comia. Petitioners failed to show how the marriage of it reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty that she should have strengthenedinstead of betraying during all of her 10 years of service with the company. 2. then a Sheeting Machine Operator. The policy is premised on the mere fear that employees married to each other will be less efficient. to Alma Dayrit. albeit disproportionate. If we uphold the questioned rule without valid justification. but they are free to marry persons other than co-employees. effect. the employer can create policies based on an unproven presumption of a perceived danger at the expense of an employee’s right to security of tenure. The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate business concern in imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employee’s right to be free from arbitrary discrimination based upon stereotypes of married . New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has a relative. Respondents Comia and Simbol both got married to their fellow employees. it will actually become a prize for disloyalty. then a helper in the cutter-machine. then an employee of the Repacking Section. respondents were hired after they were found fit for the job. the only way it could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory. Neither did petitioners explain how this detriment will happen in the case of Wilfreda Comia. already employed by the company. If regarded as a justification formoderating the penalty of dismissal. ISSUE: Whether the prohibition to marry in the contract of employment is valid HELD: It is significant to note that in the case at bar. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision. The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact theory. Star Paper Corporation vs. perverting the meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of all undesirables. but were asked to resign when they married a co-employee. could be detrimental to its business operations.

Thepetitioner submits that the withdrawal of the private respondent of the 35%premium pay for selected days during the Holy Week and Christmas season. INC... AMERICAN WIREAND CABLE CO. 2005 FACTS:American Wire and Cable Co. – Nothing in this Book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way diminishsupplements. the American Wire andCable Monthly-Rated Employees Union and the American Wire and Cable Daily-Rated Employees. the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimination in our jurisdiction cannot benefit the petitioners. In the case of Estrella. which they have long enjoyed. we rule that the questioned policy is an invalid exercise of management prerogative. There are two unions in this company. AMERICAN WIRE AND CABLE DAILY RATED EMPLOYEES UNION vs. and THE COURT OF APPEALS Posted on July 9. theholding of the Christmas Party and its incidental benefits. 100. for failure of petitioners to present undisputed proof of a reasonable business necessity. 100 of the Labor Code.A decision was rendered by the Voluntary Arbitrator in favor of the privaterespondent. Petition was denied. Corollary. Inc.. Thus. CA affirmed and upheld the Arbitrator’s decision. as amended.persons working together in one company. HELD: The Court ruled that respondent is not guilty of violating Art. Hence. An original action was filed before the NCMB of the Departmentof Labor and Employment (DOLE) by the two unions for voluntary arbitration. the Court ruled that it was illegal.R. 155059 (2D)April 29. The granting of a bonus is a management prerogative. PROHIBITION AGAINST ELIMINATION OR DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS. No. is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables. violated Article 100 of the Labor Code. ART. or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the time of promulgationof this Code. and the giving of serviceawards. The benefits and entitlements mentioned in the instant case are all considered bonuses which were given by the private respondent out of its generosity andmunificence. when the benefits/entitlements given to the members of petitioner union were withdrawn. The protection given to labor in our jurisdiction is vast and extensive that we cannot prudently draw inferences from the legislature’s silence that married persons are not protected under our Constitution and declare valid a policy based on a prejudice or stereotype. ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent is guilty of violating Article 100 of the LaborCode. Lastly. A bonus is an amount granted and paid to an employee for his industry and loyaltywhich contributed to the success of the employer’s business and made possible therealization of profits.something given in addition to what is ordinarily received by or strictly . 2013 by winnieclaire Standard G.Onappeal. the petitioner failed to adduce proof to justify her dismissal. the issue as to whether respondents Simbol and Comia resigned voluntarily has become moot and academic.

00. a bonus is not a demandable and enforceable obligation. exclusive of overtime. In addition. On December 9. Petitioners claim they were made to work twelve hours a day. Republic of China. Petitioners alleged that they were brought to a "small room with a cement floor so dirty and smelling with foul odor". 3D Pre-Color Plastic. from 8:00 p. under a uniformly-worded employment contract for a period of two years. at their own expense. MYRNA RAMONES.00. . Acuña vs CA (2006) G. 1999. Upon arriving at the job site. exceptwhen it is made part of the wage. to its principal. To hold that an employer should be forced to distribute bonuses which it grantedout of kindness is to penalize him for his past generosity. and JULIET MENDEZ. Forty women were jampacked in the room and each person was given a pillow. Petitioners. Thus. petitioners were not paid any salary for work rendered on December 11-15.” the giving of the bonus should have beendone over a long period of time. Facts: Petitioners are Filipino overseas workers deployed by private respondent Join International Corporation (JIC). 1999. After their papers were processed. salary or compensation of the employee. Inc. to 8:00 a. To be considered a “regular practice. vs.. for a period of two years. they had to ask permission to use the men's comfort room.840.R. a licensed recruitment agency. The downtrend in the grant of these two bonuses over the yearsdemonstrates that there is nothing consistent about it. They were requested to temporarily bear with the inconvenience but were assured that their dormitory would be completed in a short time. a factory owned by 3D. they left for Taiwan.due therecipient. Before they left. 159832 MERCEDITA ACUÑA. They were informed that the dormitory which would serve as their living quarters was still under construction. HON. For a bonus to be enforceable. (3D) in Taiwan. Private respondent Elizabeth Alañon is the president of Join International Corporation. 1999. Sometime in September 1999. It wasnever incorporated in the CBA. They booked a flight home.840. and must be shown to have been consistent anddeliberate.m. they were constrained to inform management that they were leaving. petitioners filed with private respondents applications for employment abroad.m. The assailed benefitswere never subjects of any agreement between the union and the company. they were made to sign another contract which stated that their salary was only NT$11. it must have been promised by the employer andexpressly agreed upon by the parties or it must have had a fixed amount and had been a long and regular practice on the part of the employer. petitioners claimed they signed a uniformly-worded employment contract with private respondents which stipulated that they were to work as machine operators with a monthly salary of NT$15. Immediately upon arrival in the Philippines. On December 16. COURT OF APPEALS and JOIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and/or ELIZABETH ALAÑON. due to unbearable working conditions. they were made to sign a written waiver. Since the ladies' comfort room was out of order.Respondents.

narrated what happened. or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the worker's favor. 8042 filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment/underpayment of salaries or wages. Act No. thus entitling them to benefits plus damages. Issue: Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed under Rep.640 10 and P16. Constructive dismissal covers the involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible. These cited circumstances do not reflect malice by private respondents nor do they show the principal's intention to subject petitioners to unhealthy accommodations. On the award of moral and exemplary damages. Under these facts. private respondents offered a settlement. Moral and exemplary damages are recoverable only where the dismissal of an employee was attended by bad faith or fraud. Private respondents refused. 2000. Petitioner Mendez received P15. upon their arrival. private respondents are solidarily liable with the foreign principal for the overtime pay claims of petitioners. Petitioners did not refute private respondents' assertion that they had deployed approximately sixty other workers to their principal. Court found that petitioners did not deny that the accommodations were not as homely as expected. Overtime pay is granted despite petitioners lack of proof that they actually rendered overtime work. moral and exemplary damages. we cannot rule that there was constructive dismissal. refund of transportation fare. They claim they signed a waiver. The next day. insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to an employee. . and demanded the return of their placement fees and plane fare. and to the best of their knowledge. or when a clear discrimination. for the law always presumes good faith. doubts reasonably arising from the evidence. Moral damages cannot be awarded. respectively. otherwise they would not be refunded. much less. 8042. that the dormitory was still under construction and were requested to bear with the temporary inconvenience and the dormitory would soon be finished. On January 14. no other worker assigned to the same principal has resigned. since their employment records were in the custody of the principal employer. Held: No illegal dismissal. filed a case for illegal dismissal. or was done in a manner contrary to morals.200. Petitioners' admitted that they were told by the principal. when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay. we hold that such award lacks legal basis. petitioners Acuña and Ramones went back and received P13. payment of salaries/wages for 3 months. or constituted an act oppressive to labor. petitioners Acuña and Mendez invoking Republic Act No. 1999. and refund of placement fee before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). fraud or ill motive on the part of private respondents. It is a timehonored rule that in controversies between a worker and his employer. overtime pay.petitioners went to private respondents' office.080. good customs or public policy. On December 28. The person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence. unreasonable or unlikely. Petitioners failed to prove bad faith.

RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES(NUWHRAIN) . coerced or intimidated into signing a quitclaim waiver in the amounts of P13. vs . P15. J. No. there can be no award of exemplary damages. the petition is DISMISSED. It granted P 30 ECOLA to all private sector workersand employees in NCR with a daily wage rate of P 250 to P 290 . • 3/20/02 .NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL. Quitclaims are valid. nor attorney's fees. G. Nonetheless.640. • Labor Standards Officer Navidad conducted 2 inspections of the hotel.. without prejudice to the filing of illegal recruitment complaint against the respondents pursuant to Section 6(i) of The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 (Rep. DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO-MANILA petitioner. . considering the economic disadvantage of the employee and the inevitable pressure upon him by financial necessity.. INC. Nor was there a disparity between the amount of the quitclaim and the amount actually due the petitioners. respondent . The first inspection revealed theemployees were receiving more than P 290 daily wage.080 and P16. Act No. the amount of the quitclaim paid to petitioners was actually higher than the amount due them. WHEREFORE. The second inspection revealed there were 144 employees affected by WO#9 .Wage Order No.200 respectively. After conversion to Philippine pesos. the so-called "economic difficulties and financial crises" allegedly confronting the employee is not an acceptable ground to annul the compromise agreement unless it is accompanied by a gross disparity between the actual claim and the amount of the settlement. hence WO#9 did not apply (note: payrolls were notsubmitted yet). PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS. 8042).Without the award of moral damages. 9 (WO#9) took effect.DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO CHAPTER. Records reveal that petitioners were not in any way deceived. • 11/5/01 . Quitclaims executed by the employees are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers' legal rights. 2009 Chico-Nazario.NUWHRAIN (Union) sent a letter to Director Maraan of DOLE-NCR reporting the non-compliance of Dusit with the ECOLA required under WO#9 while there was an ongoing compulsoryarbitration before the NLRC due to a bargaining deadlock between the Union and Dusit.R. 181972 August 25.

o The Union appealed to the CA. 1. which ruled in their favor. 1. in Jan. Only 82 employees are still entitled to the ECOLA (1st tranch) after applying the wage increase.DOLE-NCR issued a Compliance Order directing the hotel to pay the 144 affected employeesthe total amount of P1. upon the effectivity of WO#9. P 600/mo. o Dusit filed an MR. maintaining the wage increases granted by theNLRC should not be deemed compliance by Dusit with WO#9. Dusit filed an MR which was denied. pursuant to Section 12 of RA 6727. • The retroactively increased salaries of the employees granted in the NLRC decision should be used asbases for determining W/N they were entitled to ECOLA under WO#9. DOLE Acting Sec. • After the 2nd round of the wage increase.DOLE-NCR set aside its Order and dismissed the complaint of the Union. but later reversed upon Dusit's MR. 1. which took the employees out of the coverage of WO#9. 2002. He admitted he had disregardedthat the wage increase granted in the NLRC decision retroacted to Jan. W/N the 144 affected employees are still entitled to the ECOLA under WO#9 despite the wage increasesNO.218. 2001. It alleged the DOLE-NCR Order had become moot and academic considering thewage increase granted by the NLRC. Imson initiallygranted the Union's appeal. unless so provided in the law or the CBA itself. o The Union appealed before the DOLE Secretary. 9. 2003). Otherwise. the Court would besanctioning unjust enrichment on the part of the employees. Hence. equivalent to P15 per day. • The reliance of the Union on Section 13 of WO#9 is misplaced. the wageincrease already constituted complience with WO#9. by 01/01/02. This section would apply only if Dusitwere proposing to pay its employees the wage increases in place of the ECOLA. The position of Dusitis merely that the retroactive increases place said employees beyond the coverage of WO No.CA ordered Dusit to pay ECOLA to the 144 employees. plus the penalty of doubleindemnity.240 corresponding to unpaid ECOLA under WO#9. Consequently. only the said 82employees were entitled to receive the first tranch of ECOLA. only 82 hotel employees had daily salaryrates falling within the range of P250 to P290. . 2001. • After applying the 1st round of the wage increase. the CAdeclared that wage increases/allowances granted by the employer shall not be credited ascompliance with the prescribed increase in the WO. • 10/22/02 . W/N (as Dusit argues) the 82 employees' receipt of their shares in the service charges alreadyconstituted substantial compliance with WO#9 NO.• 10/09/02 NLRC rendered a decision in the compulsory arbitration granting 3 rounds of wageincreases (P 500/mo. no hotel employee was qualified to receive ECOLA. Referring to Section 13 of WO#9. Thus. P 550/mo. Union filed an MR which was denied. the daily salary rates of all hotel employees were alreadyabove P 290. retroacting to Jan. in Jan 1.

the hotel employees have a right to their share in the service charges. Series of 1998. the Notice of Inspection Result(issued prior to the Compliance Order) should contain an advice that the employer shall be liable fordouble indemnity in case of refusal/failure to correct the violation within 5 calendary days. W/N Dusit is liable for the penalty of double indemnity NO. theNotice of Inspection Reult dated 05/29/02 did not contain such an advice. Here. 10.Undoubtedly.• Pursuant to Labor Code Art. gratification by Dusit of one does not result in the satisfaction of the other. This deprived Dusit of theopportunity to decide and act accordingly within the 5-day period so as to avoid the penalty. 96. their right to their shares in the service charges collected by Dusit is distinct and separatefrom their right to ECOLA. . • Under Section 2(m) of DOLE Department Order No.