vs. HELD: “The incident happened on
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS May 20, 1985 and right then and there
as afore repeated on the following day
private respondent was suspended in
MALLARE the morning and was dismissed from
the service in the afternoon. He
(G.R. No. 80587, February 8, 1989) received an official notice of his
termination four (4) days later.
FACTS: Respondent was hired by
Petitioner first, as a crew member,
then as Assistant Head of the
Backroom in its Cubao branch. On May
“Although in the Personnel Manual of
29, 1985, the Respondent got into an
altercation with his coworker, Job the petitioner, it states that an erring
Barrameda which resulted in employee must request for an
Barrameda’s suspension while investigation it does not thereby mean
respondent was dismissed from work. that petitioner is thereby relieved of
the duty to conduct an investigation
His dismissal prompted the before dismissing private respondent.
Respondent to file a complaint for
Indeed said provision of the Personnel
illegal suspension, illegal dismissal
and unfair labor practices before the Manual of petitioner which may
Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter, effectively deprive its employees of
however, dismissed the complaint. But the right to due process is clearly
upon appeal to the NLRC, the said against the law and hence null and
tribunal reversed the decision of the void. The security of tenure of a
Labor Arbiter. laborer or employee is enshrined in
Petitioner cried foul imputing to the the Constitution, the Labor Code and
NLRC committed grave abuse of other related laws.
discretion, contending that the
decision of Petitioner to dismiss
Respondent was justified. In support of
his contention, Petitioner cited a “Under Section 1, Rule XIV of the
provision in the “Personnel Manual” Implementing Regulations of the Labor
which states that if an employee
Code, it is provided that "No worker
commits an offense punishable with
suspension of more than 15 days, an shall be dismissed except for just or
investigation may be conducted at the authorized cause provided by law and
request of the concerned employee. In after due process." Sections 2, 5, 6,
this case, said Petitioner, Respondent and 7 of the same rules require that
did not request for an investigation, before an employer may dismiss an
therefore, Respondent’s right to invoke employee the latter must be given a
said provision should be deemed
written notice stating the particular
act or omission constituting the
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent’s grounds thereof; that the employee
right to due process was violated. may answer the allegations within a

reasonable period; that the employer RUBEN SERRANO, petitioner
shall afford him ample opportunity to vs
be heard and to defend himself with NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
the assistance of his representative, if
he so desires; and that it is only then
that the employer may dismiss the
employee by notifying him of the Facts:
decision in writing stating clearly the Sometime in1991, Isetann
reasons therefor. Department Store (Isetann) instituted
a retrenchment program which
abolished its Security Checkers
Section. Isetann engaged the services
of an independent security agency. On
“The failure of petitioner to give October 11, 1991, Ruben Serrano, the
private respondent the benefit of a head of Isetann’s Security Checkers
hearing before he was dismissed Section received a letter from the
constitutes an infringement of his Human Resources Department of
constitutional right to due process of Isetann terminating his services
law and equal protection of the laws. effective the same day.
Because of loss of employment,
Ruben Serrano filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
Labor Arbiter rendered
“The rule is explicit as above judgement finding the dismissal of
discussed. The dismissal of an Ruben Serrano illegal and that Isetann
employee must be for just or failed to accord due process to the
authorized cause and after due petitioner. Isetann was ordered to pay
Ruben Serrano full backwages from
process. Petitioner committed an
the time of his dismissal until
infraction of the second requirement. reinstatement.
Thus, it must be imposed a sanction Isetann appealed to National
for its failure to give a formal notice Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
and conduct an investigation as which, reversed the decisionof the
required by law before dismissing Labor Arbiter and ordered Ruben
petitioner from employment. Serrano to be given separation pay
equivalent to one month pay for every
Considering the circumstances of this
year of service. NLRC held that the
case petitioner must indemnify the abolition of the Security Checkers and
private respondent the amount of hiring of an independent security
P1,000.00. The measure of this award agency constituted an exercise by
depends on the facts of each case and Isetann of its legitimate business
the gravity of the omission committed decision.
by the employer. Petitioner appealed to the
Supreme Court.

Whether or not the hiring of
G.R. No. 117040 January 27, independent security agency by
2000 Isetann to replace the Security

the worker affected In sum. Consequently. A fraction is reinstated or only granted of at least six months shall be separation pay. consultation. if in proceedings for thereby shall be entitled to a reinstatement under Art. In either case. the termination of Ruben Serrano While there should be mutual Whether or not the non. With respect unless the closing is for the purpose of to Art 283 of the Labor Code. whether he service. he operations of establishment or must be granted separation pay in undertaking not due to serious accordance with Art. backwages if he has been laid off Supreme Court held that without written notice at least 30 days Management cannot be denied the in advance. If employee’s separation is the separation pay shall be equivalent without cause. instead of being given to at least one month pay or at least separation pay. In case of be ordered reinstated even though retrenchment to prevent losses and in there is failure to comply with the 30- cases of closure or cessation of day notice requirement. requirements of due process. absent proof (old) of the Labor Code constituted a that management acted in a malicious denial of due process or arbitrary manner.Checkers Section a valid ground for or contracted to outside agencies. In case of termination due to which makes the termination merely the installation of labor-saving devices ineffectual. business losses or financial reverses. he should be paid full considered as one whole year. The Article 283 of the Labor Code termination of petitioner’s services provides that the employer may also was for an authorized cause. 283. eventually deference is compliance of Isetann of the 30-day to be paid to what management written notice requirement in Art 283 decides. or redundancy. whichever is higher. cause. then the employee should not whichever is higher. Some retrenchment to prevent losses or the are simply part of a procedure to be closing or cessation of operations of followed before a right granted to a the establishment or undertaking party can be exercised. ordering Isetann to pay petitioner To it belongs the ultimate separation pay equivalent to one determination of whether services month pay for every year of service should be performed by its personnel and full backwages from the time his . he should be one-half month pay for every year of reinstated. Instead. by serving a written notice on notice of requirement does not the workers and the Department of constitute a denial of due process but Labor and Employment at least one a mere failure to observe a procedure month before the intended date for the termination of employment thereof. 283. redundancy. the circumventing the provisions of this employer’s failure to comply with the Title. the Court will not interfere with the exercise of Ruling: judgement by an employer. terminate the employment of any Supreme Court also held that employee due to the installation of not all notice requirements are labor-saving devices. faculty of promoting efficiency and Petition granted and the attaining economy by a study of what resolution the NLRC is modifies by units are essential for its preparation. it is separation pay equivalent to at least shown that the termination of one month pay or to at least one employment was due to an authorized month pay for every year of service.

employment was terminated up to the with recruiting a certain number of time decision becomes final.” FACTS: 2. disobeyed. Manulife is achieve the company's goals. established. entitled to such notices. To repeat. it must be pointed out that the fact that Tongko was tasked . and methods by which Tongko was to Thus. it must be concluded Manulife and Tongko? that Tongko was illegally dismissed. “Manulife did not even point out Tongko started working at Manulife by which order or rule that Tongko virtue of a Career Agent’s Agreement. was Manulife guilty of illegal dismissal? “Moreover. mere ISSUES: conjectures cannot work to deprive 1. MANULIFE employee of Manulife. on this ground too. agents. Since we have the fact that Tongko was an employee ruled that of Manulife may already be Tongko is its employee. he received performance. it RULING: reasons that 1. however.” guilty of illegal dismissal. as to Manulife's failure to comply with the twin notice rule.” 2. in addition to his other administrative functions. If yes. and equated the same to is the lowest performer in terms of disobedience and neglect of duty. Manulife development programs in the regional merely cited Tongko's alleged ‘laggard sales management level. It must be the changes needed to meet the goal. with the company Tongko not being its employee is not regulations and requirements alone. Manulife He was first named as Unit Manager in did not point out the specific acts that Manulife’s Sales Agency Organization Tongko was guilty of that would and later on as Branch Manager.’ without substantiating a letter informing him that his region such claim. As a result.” “Additionally. leads to no other conclusion that he was an TONGKO vs. Thus. reiterated that Manulife even failed to Subsequently. Manulife failed to overcome was provided with directives as part of such burden of proof. Was there an employer- employees of their means of employee relationship between livelihood. much less support the same with substantial evidence. More importantly.” recruiting. Tongko received a identify the specific acts by which notice of termination with 15-day Tongko's employment was terminated effectivity from receipt of such letter. When constitute gross and habitual neglect Manulife instituted manpower of duty or disobedience. “Thus. Certainly. these Manulife clearly failed to afford Tongko requirements controlled the means said notices. meetings were held to tackle on issues and Tongko “Here.

explain why he should not be (b) A hearing or conference terminated for failure to meet during which the employee concerned. employee indicating that upon respondent again wrote. FELICIANO. petitioner. upon Aliling. Thereafter. Labor Code which provides: Facts: Aliling was an employee of “Section 2. On October 6. Clearly enough. Book V of the EXPRESS CORPORATION. As to the first written notice. JOSEPH R. the (a) A written notice served company sent an email to the on the employee specifying the petitioner to express dissatisfaction ground or grounds of termination. envisaged in LARIOSA AND WIDE WIDE WORLD Section 2 (III). the written . Rule XXIII. two (2) notice rule. expected job performance (This letter with the assistance of counsel if the was later denied to have been employee so desires. this time to due consideration of all the advise Aliling of the termination of his circumstance. Barely a month after. When the Labor quota. and respondent informed petitioner that (c) A written notice [of] his case was still in the process of termination served on the being evaluated. 2004 respondent reasonable opportunity to explain through its memo asked Aliling to his side. Lastly. In other words. with the latter’s performance. process. 2004. As a rule to effect a legal letter did not specifically state Aliling’s dismissal the employer must show not “non-satisfactory performance. Code speaks of procedural due JOSE B.” or only a valid ground therefor but also that Aliling’s termination was by procedural due process should reason of his failure to achieve his set properly be observed. not able to explain). is given the received by the petitioner. WWWEC Issue/s: Whether or not Aliling was did not adduce proof to show that a illegally terminated by reason of copy of the letter was duly served violation of due process requirement. For termination of Employment base the company’s Ground Express (GX) on just causes as defined in Article involving domestic cargo forwarding 282 of the Coode: services. grounds have been services effective as of that date established to justify his owing to his “non-satisfactory termination. performance”. Omnibus Rules of Implementing the respondents.ARMANDO ALILING. 2004. Aliling was illegally requirement. Standard of due process: Wide Wide World Express Corporation requirements of notice (WWWEC) who was tasked to handle I. On and giving the said employee September 20. MANUEL F. the reference is usually to the SAN MATEO III. WWWEC did not comply with the first notice Held: YES. vs. the termination terminated. on a present his evidence or rebut the letter dated October 1. evidence presented against him. thus he was opportunity to respond to the charge.

2004.048. was executed over a condominium unit in San Miguel Court. them of the denial or disapproval of MARK TRADING. Here. the 4.notice of termination itself did not mortgage debt via dacion en pago. requirements have not been properly 69294 for Temporary Restraining observed. They imputed bad faith on the part of petitioner who did not officially inform EQUITABLE PCI BANK. estate mortgage. No. the first and second notice Respondents then filed Civil Case No. OJ.800. ISSUE: Pasig City. the Bank of a commercial lot of HELD: corresponding value and also requested for recomputation at a NO.R. Valle Verde 5. shown a clear legal right to enjoin the Respondent-spouses defaulted in the foreclosure and public auction of the payment of their outstanding loan third-party mortgagors property while obligation. thus tainting petitioner’s Order (TRO). According to the SC: as certificates of title and tax declarations so that the bank can 1.00. As security for the said appellate court sustained the assailed amount. INC. The respondents failed to clear legal right to enjoin the submit the required documents such foreclosure. and their proposal to settle the loan SPOUSES OSCAR AND EVANGELINE obligation by dacion via assignment of MARTINEZ a commercial property. INC. By Inc. indicate all the circumstances The petitioner initiated the involving the charge to justify extrajudicial foreclosure of the real severance of employment. of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale. The Supreme Court held that the lower interest rate and condonation of respondent spouses have not shown a penalties. vs. settle their loan obligations. 2010) (20) days. a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) orders. Metro Manila where the Whether or not the respondents have spouses are residing. Petitioner questioned the issuance of FACTS: preliminary injunction before the CA arguing that the respondents are not Respondent-spouses Oscar and entitled to injunctive relief after having Evangeline Martinez obtained loans admitted that they were unable to from petitioner Equitable PCI Bank. in the aggregate amount of P Decision dated October 29. Injunction and Annulment dismissal with illegality. The trial court granted a TRO effective for twenty G. they offered to settle their the case for annulment of REM on said indebtedness with the assignment to property is being tried. 165950 (August 11. It is not sufficient for the respondents to simply harp on evaluate his proposal to pay the .

or to restrain then were required to sign a an action which did not give rise memorandum of agreement with to a cause of action. On the face of their clear condition for the release of their admission that they were termination benefits and separation unable to settle their obligations pay. petitioner has a clear their benefits and separation pay. Petitioners were is not stayed. shall make any deduction from the wages of his FACTS: employees. NORA MENDOZA. a mortgage indebtedness. Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of Foreclosure is but a necessary Petitioner. As an exception to the general WILFREDO JAVIER. 77703 is hereby separation pay. REVERSED and SET ASIDE. CA ruled in consequence of non-payment of favour of Solid Mills. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. employer. RONALDO rule that wages may not be withheld DAVID. There release and quitclaim before their must be an existence of an vacation and sick leave benefits. Our law supports the employers’ institution of clearance procedures before the release of EMER MILAN. . Injunction is not a the respondents to the petitioners out remedy to protect or enforce of liberality and for convenience of the contingent. ET AL. and to the demolition of directed are violative of the said the constructed houses inside as right.R. and separation pay would 2.. BONIFACIO MATUNDAN. 13 month pay and G. the petition is ISSUE: GRANTED. to occupy a establish such clear and property owned by the latter known as unmistakable right to the the SMI Village. can dated October 29. and benefits may not be diminished. They must allowed by Solid Mills. the Labor Code provides: Petitioners. Solid Mills experience a serious rights. or future latter. SOLID Art. Respondents failed to show that be released. AND/OR PHILIP ANG. Employees who signed they have a right to be the memorandum of agreement were protected and that the acts considered to have agreed to vacate against which the writ is to be SMI Village. Inc. abstract. NLRC affirmed. right to foreclose the mortgage. the serious damage they stand Petitioners are employees of to suffer if the foreclosure sale Solid Mills. month pay. behalf of any person. it will not issue to protect financial losses to which had force its a right not in esse and which operation to ceased. This was granted by injunction. RANDY MASANGKAY. INC. 2004 of withhold the payment of vacation and the Court of Appeals in CA- sick leave benefits. Respondents application for HELD: a writ of preliminary injunction is DENIED. SP No. Wage deduction. Petitioners refused to sign the which were secured by the documents and demanded to be paid mortgage. WHEREFORE. The petitioners may never arise. No MILLS. v. in his own behalf or in Respondents. Inc. 113. except. The Decision WON Solid Mills Inc. wages. 13th actual right..

FONTERRA BRANDS PHILS. in cases where the Petitioner Fonterra Brands Phils. Petitioners were merely allowed to possess and use it out of respondent The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter. and promotion of its milk and dairy 3. Sicat Marketing and Promotional Services (A. Article 1706. In cases where the employer is products. deny respondent Solid Mills’ ownership they allegedly sought renewal thereof.C. It includes any applications with A. Employment. INC. Respondents. Solid Mills’ liberality. shall not agreement for manpower supply with be made by the employer. There is no months. authorized by law or regulations Zytron provided Fonterra with trade issued by the Secretary of Labor and merchandising representatives (TMRs). In cases where the worker is insured ADO AND TEOTIMO with his consent by the employer. Inc. Pursuant to the contract.. Sicat. Commission. Desirous of “Debt” in this case refers to any continuing their work as TMRs. (Zytron) for the marketing and the individual worker concerned. National Labor Relations petitioner. demand the property from Zytron was brought about by the at will. This superior right to it. right of the worker or his union to (Fonterra) contracted the services of check-off has been recognized by the Zytron Marketing and Promotions employer or authorized in writing by Corp. and ESTRELLADO. and A. March 18. (Emphasis supplied) including respondents Leonardo Largado (Largado) and The Civil Code provides that the TeotimoEstrellado (Estrellado).C. of the property.R. Zytron. employer is authorized to withhold wages for debts due: Fonterra sent Zytron a letter terminating its promotions contract. which accountability that the employee may hired them for a term of five (5) have to the employer. What can be prompted respondents to file gathered from the findings of the complaints for illegal dismissal against Labor Arbiter. Petitioner. 205300.. No. The employer finding that respondents’ separation may. and they do not claim but were allegedly refused.d A. For union dues. reason to limit its scope to uniforms and equipment. Sicat). therefore. LEONARDO1 LARG The NLRC decision was assailed in a .. the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by him Facts: as premium on the insurance 2. 2015 Fonterra and A. obligation due from the employee to respondents submitted their job the employer. Petitioners do not categorically with A. v.C.C. execution of the contract between G. and the Court of Appeals is that respondent Solid Mills allowed The Labor Arbiter dismissed the the use of its property for the benefit complaint and ruled that respondents of petitioners as its employees. Withholding of the Fonterra then entered into an wages. Sicat where the parties agreed to absorb Zytron’s personnel. except for a debt due.1.C. Sicat.C. as petitioners would When respondents’ 5-month contracts argue. Sicat were about to expire. were not illegally dismissed. including respondents.

respondents’ employment with Zytron [respondents] submitted their job was brought about by the cessation of applications to A. respective contracts with the latter. (By zytron they will be able to continue rendering and A. accompanied by the act of Sicat arose from the expiration of their abandonment.C. Resignation is termination of their supposed the voluntary act of employees who employment with Zytron on June 6. Hence.C.” This is their contracts with the latter. ruled that Fonterra is Here. of Zytron’s contract with Fonterra. to be able to continue with their assignment. However. the termination of merchandisers of Fonterra products. this petition. but to no avail. and other benefits from the time of their illegal dismissal up to renew their contracts was brought the time of their actual reinstatement. The CA. Their voluntary refusal to backwages. Lastly. Hence.C. Sicat with the hope that were illegally dismissed.petition under Rule 65 before the CA. about by their desire to continue their assignment in Fonterra which could Zytron and Fonterra moved for not happen in view of the conclusion reconsideration. Sicat is tantamount to employment.C. thus. they applied for Issue:whether or not respondents work with A. Sicat) services as TMRs at Fonterra since Held: No. respondents effectively should be reckoned from the resigned from the latter. with full Zytron. The CA stated As correctly held by the Labor Arbiter that “[t]o continuously work as and the NLRC. Sicat. the illegal dismissal with Zytron. respondents’ dissociate themselves from their transfer to A. A. Sicat. it is obvious that respondents liable to respondents and ordered the were no longer interested in reinstatement of respondents without continuing their employment with loss of seniority rights. are compelled by personal reasons to 2006. Sicat is Fonterra’s new manpower supplier. We give further bolstered by the fact that credence to the Labor Arbiter’s respondents voluntarily complied with conclusion that respondents were the the requirements for them to claim ones who refused to renew their their corresponding monetary benefits contracts with Zytron. CA held that respondents were illegally dismissed since Fonterra itself By refusing to renew their contracts failed to prove that their dismissal is lawful. Furthermore. done with the intention a completely new engagement by of relinquishing an office. This fact is even We do not agree with the CA that acknowledged by the CA in the respondents’ employment with Zytron assailed Decision where it recognized was illegally terminated. the termination of their contract with A. acquiesced to their transfer to A. and the NLRC’s in relation to the cessation of their finding that they themselves employment contract with Zytron.C. the reason why respondents applied for work at A.C. Sicat xxx. .C. another employer.C.

In short.” whether the termination of Respondents. Zytron client. As previously held by non-renewal of their contracts by A. were well aware of and even We agree with the findings of the CA acceded to the condition that their that the termination of respondents’ employment thereat will end on said employment with the latter was simply pre-determined date of termination. to that such was done in bad faith those by nature seasonal or for militates against their contention that specific projects with predetermined they were illegally dismissed.C. respondents were fixed. 08 March 1989. 2006. after its expiration. by accepting the respondents’ employment with conditions of the contract with A. Nov.) In the case at bar. it is clear that . your to mention that for obvious reasons. Sicat is] employment contracts with the latter. JAPAN ACTIVE CARBON agreed upon by the parties for the CORP. fixed-term employment Sicat is a management prerogative. This is so since the term employees. factor of such contracts is not the duty of the employee but the day certain PHIL. illegally dismissed by the latter when it refused to renew their contracts Foremost. they also include expiration of their contract with A.R. Sicat. J. temporarily employing [respondents] applying with A. G. and working as TMR[s] effective June 6[.C. No.C. FIRST DIVISION (Griño-Aquino. The dates of completion.C. brought about by the expiration of They cannot now argue that they were their employment contracts. This being the case. 2006] as the latter’s employees. and SATOFUKA v. 06. temporary employment will be for the resignation is inconsistent with illegal duration only of said project of our dismissal. as they are and failure of respondents to prove under the present Labor Code. 83239. Too. contrary to the expected to be finished on or before findings of the CA. respondents voluntarily Sicat as project employees. this Court. Sicat is valid? Sicat.C. namely to promote FONTERRA cannot be said to have illegally BRANDS products xxx which is dismissed respondents.11 The determining employment there at.C. contracts are not limited. A. it is well being only for a specific project. it Zytron by refusing to renew their is clearly stated that “[A. those to which the parties by free Sicat simply caused the natural choice have assigned a specific date cessation of their fixed-term of termination. thereby under the following terms and abandoning their previous conditions: The need for your service employment with Zytron. In their terminated their employment with employment contract with the latter. NLRC and commencement and termination of QUIÑANOLA the employment relationship. respondents were employed by A.C.

the employee may not complain that it amounts to a constructive dismissal.FACTS The Supreme Court rules that there was NO constructive dismissal. 29. competence. she assignment as Production Secretary of believed otherwise so she rejected the the Production Department was not assignment and filed a complaint for unreasonable as it did not involve a illegal dismissal. to move them around in the various areas of its business Upon appeal to the NLRC." When an employee's transfer is not unreasonable. Philippine Japan Active Carbon based on its assessment and Corporation and/or Tokuichi Satofuka perception of its employees' to reinstate her with backwages and qualifications. aptitudes. an offer involving a demotion in and without prior notice to her. The LA finds Quiñanola was illegally dismissed and orders It is the employer's prerogative. benefits. unreasonable or unlikely. 1971) Although the transfer did not amount to a demotion because her salary and In this case. It did not constitute a to obey the transfer order was constructive dismissal. was promoted to the defined as: "A quitting because position of Executive Secretary to the continued employment is rendered Executive Vice President and General impossible. nor inconvenient. she rank and a diminution in pay. the operations in order to "ascertain Commission approved the Labor where they will function with Arbiter's decision. and damages. HELD NLRC's decision is affirmed insofar as it orders herein petitioners . her refusal privileges. demotion in rank (her rank was still that of a department secretary) nor a The Labor Arbiter found that the change in her place of work (the office transfer would amount to constructive is in the same building). and unjustified causes") hence. For no apparent reason at all as. Quiñanola employed as Assistant Secretary/Export A constructive discharge is Coordinator. Olga S." (Alia vs. January Department as Production Secretary. and it does not ISSUE involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries. Manager. Was there a constructive dismissal? and other privileges. Quiñanola's workload remained the same. nor a dismissal ("she was dismissed for diminution in pay. nor prejudicial to him. benefits. justified.. maximum benefit to the company. was transferred to the Production Salani Una Transportation Co.

J. and/or DE liable for separation pay CASTRO v. The requisites of a valid . union members on a ground similar to (DPAI) informed Minterbro of its retrenchment. Davao City. responsible for the lack of work at the Sasa. 174300. This Court has ruled: intention to refrain from docking vessels at Minterbro’s pier for security "A lay-of. sent a letter to the management. Production Secretary of the Production Department without loss of seniority ISSUE rights and other privileges. et al. As Minterbro was services to its clientele at Port Area. used and safety reasons until its docks are interchangeably with repaired or rehabilitated. The Supreme Court finds Minterbro liable to its employees. the union members. It is an act of the Department of Labor and Employment employer of dismissing (DOLE) to inform DOLE of Minterbro’s employees because of losses in intention to temporarily suspend operation of a business.) Minterbro's inaction on what they allege to be the unexplained FACTS abandonment by Del Monte of its obligations under the Contract for the Mindanao Terminal and Use of Pier coupled with petitioners’ Brokerage Service. 05 December 2012.to reinstate Quiñanola. Inc. filed a Court. it is liable for the separation from employment of the Davao Pilots' Association. and considerable reduction on the volume of his The Union composed of business. a right consistently respondents Manuel Abellana. the layoff of exclusive client. Inc. consequently. No. lack of arrastre and stevedoring operations. recognized and affirmed by this employees of Minterbro. (Minterbro) is a belated action on the damaged domestic corporation managed by De condition of the pier caused the Castro and engaged in the business of absence of available work for the providing arrastre and stevedoring union members. Del Monte is their pier and. et al. Minterbro "retrenchment. G. FIRST DIVISION (Leonardo- De Castro. NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA MINTERBRO– HELD SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR and/or ABELLANA. INC.. work.R." is a decided to rehabilitate the pier and on recognized prerogative of the same day. Whether or not the union members/employees were deprived of gainful employment making Minterbro MINTERBRO. but she shall complaint for payment of separation be reinstated to her position as pay against Minterbro and De Castro.

ABS-CBN engaged the unpredictability of viewer. underpayment of not deemed terminated. for subsequent daily airings in the same was allegedly limited to the respondents’ TV Patrol Bicol Program. in part. holiday pay. service incentive leave pay. engaged as reporters. the company had union members. Monte on the latter’s obligations under the Contract of Use of Pier and to Respondents argued that. simply for . Vs ABS-CBN contractors were required to Corporation and Amala Villafuerte accomplish Talent Information Forms to facilitate their engagement for and FACTS: appearance on designated project Respondent ABS-CBN days. In support of their claims for employment status of the employee is regularization. services of petitioners Begino and Del Respondents insisted that. imposition of general guidelines on conduct and performance. Petitioners were Although petitioners were inevitably tasked with coverage of news items subjected to some degree of control. fide suspension of the operation of the petitioners alleged that they business or undertaking for a period performed functions necessary and not exceeding six months does not desirable in ABS-CBN's business. that the bona damages and attorney's fees. averred that they were repeatedly hired by respondents for ostensible When Minterbro failed to make fixed periods and this situation had work available to the union members hone on for years since TV Patrol Bicol for a period of more than six months has continuously aired from 1996 by failing to call the attention of Del onwards. such independent Begino et. Article 286 of the Labor pay. Respondents argued that the Corporation (ABS-CBN) employed company cannot afford to provide respondent Villafuerte as Manager. They terminate employment." employees of ABS-CBN. al. to Broadcasting. the NLRC. petitioners filed a complaint against before the When a lay-off is temporary. allegedly resorted to engaging independent contractors who offered their services in relation to a particular program. Code provides. Valle as Cameramen/Editors for TV petitioners were hired as talents. undertake a timely rehabilitation of although it occasionally engages in the pier. regular work for talents given the Thru Villafuerte. Petitioners Sumayao act as reporters and/or cameramen for and Llorin were likewise similarly designated periods and rates. they are deemed to have production and generates programs constructively dismissed the thru various means. retrenchment are covered by Claiming that they were regular Article 283 of the Labor Code. but merely overtime pay. 13th month suspended.

their Talent Contracts. That. relation to the business or trade of the employer. any employee who has contemplated in Art.the purpose of upholding the The Court finds that. . an and radio content. shall be considered a regular who have been engaged to perform employee with respect to the activity activities which are usually necessary in which he is employed and his or desirable in the usual business or employment shall continue while such trade of the employer. An employment shall be NOTES: deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: • 4 kinds of employees Provided. 280 of the Labor rendered at least one year of service. there exist an employer-employee activity performed by the employee in relationship. it has been ruled that the employer-employee relationship. 280. except where the employment has been fixed for a It is evident from the foregoing specific project or undertaking the disquisition that petitioners are regular completion or termination of which employees of ABS-CBN. standards of the company and the notwithstanding the nomenclature of strictures of the industry. employer. petitioners were Employment.” long-running news program. actually exists. petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN. petitioners were are usually necessary or desirable in continuously re-hired by respondents the usual business or trade of the over the years. Aside from the fact employment shall be deemed to be that said program is a regular regular where the employee has been weekday fare of the ABS-CBN the engaged to perform activities which record shows that. Regular employees or those broken. test to determine whether RULING: employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the Yes. Time ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an and again.— The provisions of undoubtedly performing functions written agreement to the contrary necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s notwithstanding and regardless of the business of broadcasting television oral agreement of the parties. This has been determined at the time of conclusion is borne out by the the engagement of the employee or ineluctable showing that petitioners where the work or service to be perform functions necessary and performed is seasonal in nature and essential to the business of ABS-CBN the employment is for the duration of which repeatedly employed them for a the season. As cameramen/editors and “ART. Regular and Casual reporters. Code: whether such service is continuous or 1.

one of them should resign to are not regular. To justify a bona fide crucial and determinative indicator of occupational qualification. who work or perform services which are seasonal in nature. already employed by the 3. case law has consistently was employed by the company. We . the so-called "control test" is generally regarded as the most Ruling: The policy violates the rights of the employee. and. On (a) the selection and engagement of the other hand. He applied the four-fold test. up to [the] 3rd degree of relationship. the duties of the job. the the presence or absence of an employer must prove two factors: (1) employer-employee relationship. (b) the payment of wages. Comia also married a co-employee. a valid exercise of management prerogative. Comia & Lorna A. also an employee of the company. The concept of a Estrella. Simbol said relation. Project employees or those Facts: Petitioner Corporation has a whose employment has been fixed for company policy promulgated in 1995. (c) the power of dismissal. to wit: met Alma Dayrit. while Estrella had an the employee. Respondents herein were all regular • To determine the existence of employees of the company. In case of two of our employees (both singles [sic].2. Simbol. affair with her co. that the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved. and Issue: Whether the policy of the employer banning spouses from (d) the employer's power to control working in the same company violates the employee on the means and the rights of the employee under the methods by which the work is Constitution and the Labor Code or is accomplished. whom he married. (2) that there is a factual basis for Star Paper Corporation. the viz. a specific project or undertaking. Of these criteria. Josephine believing that all or substantially all Ongsitco & Sebastian Chua. Respondents were all dismissed. New applicants will not be allowed has been determined at the time of to be hired if in case he/she has [a] the engagement of the employee. project. would be unable to properly perform Wilfreda N. and relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get 4. completion or termination of which 1. Seasonal employees or those company.employee. persons meeting the qualification Petitioners vs. Casual employees or those who married. relative. one male and employment is for the duration of the another female) developed a friendly season. Respondents bona fide occupational qualification is not foreign in our jurisdiction. employees. and the 2. Ronaldo D. or seasonal preserve the policy stated above.

vs. the only children. co-employee. petitioner. he noticed a mass on his left required by the law. however. 626 therefore there must be sufficient proof that Abraham had an increased risk of contracting said ailment. THE HONORABLE COURT OF We do not find a reasonable business APPEALS and HEIRS OF ABRAHAM necessity in the case at bar. as amended.R. Insurance System (GSIS) under PD No. CATE.employ the standard of petitioner. 626. No.R. the Court . Commission(ECC). No. The questioned policy He underwent a series of surgeries may not facially violate Article 136 of and radiotherapy. It is significant to note that in the case at bar. The GSIS denied the Thus. G. we rule osteosarcoma is not considered an that the questioned policy is an invalid occupational disease under PD No. The employer has COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE the burden to prove the existence of a NATIONAL POLICE. represented by DOROTHY Petitioners’ sole contention that "the CATE.vs.COURT OF APPEALS reasonableness of the company and HEIRS OF ABRAHAM CATE. he died the Labor Code but it creates a disproportionate effect and under the and was survived by his wife and disparate impact theory. policy which is parallel to the bona fide represented by DOROTHY CATE. albeit benefits with the Government Service disproportionate. but were Osteosarcoma. 2008 The decision of GSIS was affirmed by GOVERNMENT SERVICE the Employees Compensation INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS). exercise of management prerogative. effect. That Abraham Cate(Abraham) was a the second paragraph was meant to Rifleman of Philippine Navy before give teeth to the first paragraph of the joining the Philippine National questioned rule is evidently not the Police(PNP). PT&T instruct us that the requirement X--------------------------------------------- of reasonableness must be clearly -.XG. for failure of petitioners to present undisputed proof of a claim on the ground that reasonable business necessity. occupational qualification requirement. established to uphold the questioned 2008EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION employment policy. 124275 January 28. however. respondents. 124208 January 28. way it could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite His wife filed a claim for income the discriminatory. reasonable business necessity. company did not just want to have two (2) or more of its employees related Facts: between the third degree by affinity and/or consanguinity" is lame. which is one of the asked to resign when they married a most aggressive primary bone cancer. During his service with valid reasonable business necessity the PNP. cheek which after a series of tests respondents were hired after they turned out to be an Osteoblastic were found fit for the job. The cases of Duncan and respondents.

is entitled Held: to compensation. GR No. Petitioner. therefore. the husband The application of the rules would of the respondent Imelda Pañafiel. claimant was unavailable and impossible to comply with. private respondents declared that Abraham’s disease is would not be entitled to compensable on the ground that the compensation. vs. Hence. the present state of science. 20015 The rule is that awards of compensation cannot rest on FACTS: speculations and presumptions as the claimant must prove a positive thing. therefore. was mean that absent any proof that the hired by One Shipping Corp. be liberally referred by the law to be presented by construed in favor of the applicant. The obligation to employees’ compensation? present such as an impossible evidence must. adequate to support a conclusion. AND OR ONE Abraham. PAÑAFIEL Respondent. be deemed void. consistent with the social legislation’s intended beneficial In this case. therefore. listed as an occupational disease in the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation. Employees Compensation Act is basically a social legislation designed It is practically undisputed that under to afford relief to our working men.of Appeals reversed the decision and the late Abraham. it is supposed to be upon the claimant or private “WHEREFORE. the petitions are respondents to prove by substantial DENIED.” evidence that the risk of contracting Osteosarcoma was increased by the working conditions of the late ONE SHIPPING CORP. given the present state of compensable under the present law on scientific knowledge. Respondent. January 21. Ildefonso Pañafiel. for and in risk of contracting the ailment was behalf of the principal One Shipping increased by the working conditions of Kabushiki Kaisha/Japan as second . the Whether or not the CA erred in ruling requirement is impossible to comply that the ailment of the late Abraham is with. Osteosarcoma is not purpose.. 192406. the proof and should. the deceased private respondent Hence. this petition for review. Substantial evidence means SHIPPING KABUSHIKI such relevant evidence as a KAISHA/JAPAN. Issue: In the specific case of respondent. the condition must be deemed as not imposed. reasonable mind might accept as IMELDA C.

The death of a seaman during the term of employment makes 2. it reported to his superior. what the judicial action really was. as what remains to be done against the petitioners. are (1) the correction of clerical errors. the employer is . it is was raised to CA through petition for one that places the previous judgment certiorari under Rule 65 of Revised in proper form on the record to make it Rules of Court. CA granted the petition speak of the truth as to make it show and reversed the resolution of NLRC. 2005 and sought for post meant to correct an erroneous medical examination from the conclusion of fact or law. ISSUES: 2. (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party. is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment. rendering it or by the highest court of respondent filed for monetary claims the land. CA has no jurisdiction on the Magnolia. Petitioners. but was may no longer be modified in any ignored. regardless of whether the modification Ildefonso suddenly collapsed and died is attempted to be made by the court on July 2. Nunc pro tunc complaint for lack of merit which the judgment does not pertain to NLRC affirmed on appeal. Labor Arbiter dismissed the and (3) void judgments. W/N CA has jurisdiction over death benefits. and petitioners but was not heeded.engineer on board vessel MV/ACX 1. even if the modification is on May 21. It is a husband experienced chest pain and hornbook rule that once a judgment difficulty in breathing which he has become final and executory. 2005. The issue rendering new judgment. Respondent alleged that case after the resolutions of NLRC while on board the vessel. Due to this incident. W/N Respondent is entitled to the employer liable to his heirs for avail death benefits death compensation benefits. Respondent is not entitled to avail death benefits. the death of the present case after the Resolutions of employee should occur during the Labor Arbiter and NLRC became final affectivity of the employment and executory contract. denied the monetary claims arguing The only exceptions to the rule that Ildefonso was no longer their on the immutability of final judgments employee when the incident occurred. on the other hand. He returned to the Philippines respect. rather. her became final and executory. In order to avail of 1. Once it is established that the seaman died during the effectivity of his HELD: employment contract.

In wrongful and perverse attitude. statements described therein. At the illegally dismissed by his employee least. Woodward. evidence entries in the ship’s official . In the present case. there is no least two requisites: (1) the evidence to show that Ildefonso's employee’s assailed conduct must illness was acquired during the term of have been willful. he had been engaged to discharge. no other evidence was submit his own written statement presented by the petitioners to regarding the incident. the contents of Facts: Toribio Avestruz was hired by Captain Woodward’s e-mails do not Maersk-Filipinas as Chief Cook on establish that Avestruz’s conduct had board the vessel M/V Nedlloyd been willful. damages. characterized by a wrongful and Petition is GRANTED. incident. payment for the unexpired portion of his contract. he had Court concurs with the CA’s an argument with the ship’s captain. and attorney’s It was incumbent upon the fees against Maersk. or characterized by a Drake for a period of six months. that is. Inc.liable. be entitled for death compensation necessitates the concurrence of at benefits. The the course of Avestruz’s work. On the very support their claims. Kong to mails. and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable. 18. claim that Avestruz committed acts that constitute insubordination as Issue: Whether or not Avestruz is would warrant his dismissal. lawful. made known to the employee. While rules of same day of the incident. a write a statement regarding the messman who witnessed the same. as a just cause would have sufficed for his heirs not to for the dismissal of an employee. Ildefonso Ruling: Yes. and must pertain to the duties which Maersk-Filipinas Crewing. died after he pre-terminated the contract of employment. summoning and requiring Avestruz to being corroborated by Kong. petitioners should have offered Avestruz’ return to the Philippines. v. they could have offered in Maersk due to insubordination. That alone Insubordination. he additional proof to corroborate the filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Captain evidence are not strictly observed in Woodward informed Avestruz that he proceedings before administrative would be dismissed from service. After bodies. observation that Avestruz’s Charles C. This argument statement regarding the incident in resulted in Captain Woodward the galley deserves more credence. Maersk alleged petitioners to present other that Avestruz has been lawfully substantial evidence to bolster their dismissed due to insubordination. his employment with petitioners. Furthermore. Captain Woodward likewise Apart from Captain Woodward’s e- asked Messman Jomilyn P. 2015 In this case. Avestruz GR 207010 Feb. perverse attitude.

No. Section 17 of the POEA-SEC which requires the “two-notice rule. payment for sickness allowance and disability compensation in which it was The Supreme Court also moved to dismiss by the Philippine affirmed the finding of the CA that Transmarine carriers on the ground of prescription. this lapse on . On May 6. the petitioners customary work. a malignant the day-to-day transactions and peripheral nerve sheath tumor. the seafarer shall submit regular duties.” ISSUES: Whether the heirs of the late Delfin G. the ship’s and thereafter. sought medical assistance but was not failure to do such mandatory reporting extended such. 196357 April 20. He requested medical examination within three working days attention and was advised to be given upon his return except when he is light duties. Having failed to do so. a written notice to the 2001. 2015 Dela Cruz are entitled to permanent The Heirs of the late Delfin Dela disability benefits and sickness Cruz vs. He also deemed as compliance. He left states on Section 20 (3) that upon sign the Philippines and embarked on off for the purpose for medical August 17. and MRI of the Spine. occurrences on board the vessel.R.. the claim having filed Avestruz was not accorded procedural beyond one year from the date of the due process. Carriers HELD: FACTS: The 1996 POEA SEC concerning The late Delfin Dela Cruz was disability claims and sickness contracted by Philippine Transmarine allowance applies to the case where it carriers for the position of Oiler. On November 13. he was not requirements shall result in his employed because he was already forfeiture of the right to claim the incapacitated to engage in his benefits. Furthermore. he went to De Los Santos undertaken by Delfin to comply with Medical Center and underwent X-Ray the mandatory reporting requirement. claiming a dismissed cannot be sustained. he was admitted at St. his contract expired and was agency within the same period is signed off from the vessel. Upon the vessel’s arrival physically incapacitated to do so. Luke’s Medical Center where he was logbook being the official repository of diagnosed of MPNST. While performing treatment. failed to show the steps supposedly 2003. Afterwards.logbook showing the infractions or claim for sickness allowance but was acts of insubordination purportedly not granted. he was hit by a metal himself to a post-employment medical on his back. in at a convenient port on August 16. He filed his To the Court’s mind. compliance with the provisions of 2005 Delfin passed away. there being no termination of the contract. 2000. His condition deteriorated committed by Avestruz. which case. Unfortunately. their On December 4. he filed a position that Avestruz was lawfully complaint before the NLRC. 2003. Philippine Transmarine allowance.

Therefore. was incumbent upon him. the focus of the instant commission and National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union G. said law. As of said date.. case. 178. 1987. integration of the cost of living allowance into the basic wage of the Petitioner's arguments eventually lose workers. and unambiguous.O. and National Labor Relations should be. it requires a determination of the effect of an executive order on the terms and Marcopper Mining Corporation vs the conditions of the CBA. No. However. This rate. by some uncanny Issue: Whether or not E.petitioners’ part only demonstrates Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled.O.R. Petitioner implemented it by compliance with the law is mandatory increasing first by 5% the basic rate and beyond contractual stipulation by base on the CBA and then integrating and between the parties. that cost of living allowance should There is evidently nothing to construe first be integrated before the 5% and interpret because the law is clear increase of the CBA is computed. On is what the law ordains and to which June 1. present controversy involves not Wherefore. the cost of living allowance to the consequently. from May 1. was executed a memorandum of increased with the integration of the agreement modifying the CBA by COLA. or the Before the expiration of the CBA. 1987. the Petition is merely an interpretation of CBA hereby DENIED. the respondents assailed petitioner intended the basic wage to such manner of increase and argued include the COLA becomes immaterial. It is unnecessary to delve too 103525 March 29. its effectivity retroacts to May steam in the light of the fact that 1. provisions. the term adding wage increase 5% of the basic "basic wage" includes the COLA. whether or not basic wage. No. Unfortunately for petitioner. retroactively took effect should take effect before computing on the same date the CBA increase the CBA increase? became effective. 1996 much on the intention of the parties as to what they allegedly meant by the Facts: Marcopper mining corporation term "basic wage" at the time the CBA entered into a Collective Bargaining and MOA were executed because Agreement with the National Mines there is no question that as of 1 May and Allied Workers Union effective 1987. Delfin was not between the contracting parties suffering from any physical disability stands strong and true. More importantly. to be effective May 1. No. This is. that Delfin did not comply with what “We rule for the respondents. The reasonable conclusion is that at the The principle that the CBA is the law time of his repatriation. 178 coincidence. 1987 Executive Order no. the requiring immediate medical attendance. 178 the collective bargaining agreement of was promulgated and it mandated the the parties must conform. then. 1984 until April 1987. there . the basic wage of workers. they statutory minimum wage. as mandated by E.

Also. National Labor Relations Commision. enshrined Code. likewise. 85985 (August 13. a of the Labor Code. Inc. Also. carrying out their duties and functions. However. propriety and immediately implemented. alleging that PAL violated computation of the CBA increase on paragraphs E and G of Article 249 and the basis of the "integrated" wage Article 253 of the Labor Code. acknowledges that all doubts in the interpretation of the Labor Code shall PAL. PALEA sides. to accord utmost bargaining agreement or any provision protection and justice to labor. Discipline was unilaterally implemented without notice and prior Finally. on the other had asserts its be resolved in favor of labor. it insists prerogative as an employer to that what is involved here is the prescribe rules and regulations amended CBA which is essentially a regarding employees’ conduct in contract between private persons. 1993) the part of PAL in adopting the Code and ruled that there was no unfair Facts: In 1985. inapplicable in this case. NLRC affirms.R. PAL was ordered to furnish all therein. to Philippine Airlines Employees reconsider the cases of employees Association (PALEA) filed a complaint meted with penalties under the new before the National Labor Relations Code and discuss with PALEA the Commission (NLRC) for unfair labor objected provisions.cannot be any doubt that the practice. the disciplinary measures embodied Thus. PAL was not (PAL) completely revised its 1966 Code totally fault free. the same must be stilled in alleged that copies of the Code had favor of labor. and Philippine Airlines The Labor Arbiter Isabel Ortiguerra Employees Association (PALEA). PAL maintained policy. What petitioner has lost sight of is the and alleging that by implementing the avowed policy of the State. In effect. (PAL) vs. fairness. No. On August.” referred to the requirement for negotiating a CBA which was Philippine Airlines." While petitioner been circulated in limited numbers. Ortiguerra. . PAL failed to prove that some employees were subjected to the new Code was amply circulated. Lastly. we are. labor practice. petitioner misinterprets the discussion with the Union. the same year. the employees with the new Code. because does not constitute a violation of the the implementation of the Code of CBA. it had not violated the collective in our Constitution. Management of Discipline which was circulated prerogative must meet among the employees and was reasonableness. sworn to that Article 253 cited by PALEA uphold. found that there was no bad faith on G. Inc. Labor Arbiter Isabel P. some declaration of the Labor Arbiter in the provisions of the Code run counter to assailed decision that "when the the construction of penal laws and pendulum of judgment swings to and making punishable any offense within fro and the forces are equal on both PAL’s contemplation. Philippine Airlines.

Such cooperation cannot be attained if the employees are restive on account The exercise by management of its of their being left out in the determination of cardinal and prerogative shall be done in a just. manner. fundamental matters affecting their reasonable. humane and/or lawful employment. is a shared responsibility of the Nonetheless. . whatever disciplinary employer and the employees. Petitioner's assertion that it needed Issue/s: Whether the formulation of a the implementation of a new Code of Code of Discipline among employees Discipline considering the nature of its business cannot be overemphasized. the questioned decision AFFIRMED. measures are adopted cannot be properly implemented in the absence Ruling:The petition is DISMISSED and of full cooperation of the employees.