You are on page 1of 41

SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION regulation and control of the use of and traffic on national

MAXIMO CALALANG, Petitioner, roads and streets is unconstitutional because it constitutes an
-versus- undue delegation of legislative power. This contention is
A. D. WILLIAMS, ET AL., untenable. As was observed by this court in Rubi vs.
Respondents. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phil, 660, 700), “The rule
x--------------------------------------------------x DECISION has nowhere been better stated than in the early Ohio case
G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 decided by Judge Ranney, and since followed in a multitude
Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as a private citizen and as a of cases, namely: ‘The true distinction therefore is between
taxpayer of Manila, brought before this court this petition for the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily
a writ of prohibition against the respondents, A. D. Williams, involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an
as Chairman of the National Traffic Commission; Vicente authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised
Fragante, as Director of Public Works; Sergio Bayan, as under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done;
Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications; to the latter no valid objection can be made.’ (Cincinnati, W.
Eulogio Rodriguez, as Mayor of the City of Manila; and Juan & Z. R. Co. vs. Comm’rs. Clinton County, 1 Ohio St., 88.)
Dominguez, as Acting Chief of Police of Manila. Discretion, as held by Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman vs.
It is alleged in the petition that the National Traffic Southard (10 Wheat., 1) may be committed by the
Commission, in its resolution of July 17, 1940, resolved to Legislature to an executive department or official. The
recommend to the Director of Public Works and to the Legislature may make decisions of executive departments or
Secretary of Public Works and Communications that animal- subordinate officials thereof, to whom it has committed the
drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact. (U.S. vs.
Street extending from Plaza Calderon de la Kinkead, 248 Fed., 141.) The growing tendency in the
LAUREL, J.: decisions is to give prominence to the ‘necessity’ of the
case.”
Barca to Dasmariñas Street, from 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 548 reads as follows:
from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and along Rizal Avenue “SECTION1. To promote safe transit upon, and avoid
extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national
Echague Street, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., from a period of one roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive
year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to orders of the President of the Philippines, the Director of
traffic; that the Chairman of the National Traffic Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public
Commission, on July 18, 1940 recommended to the Director Works and Communications, shall promulgate the necessary
of Public Works the adoption of the measure proposed in the rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and
resolution aforementioned, in pursuance of the provisions of traffic on such roads and streets. Such rules and regulations,
Commonwealth Act No. 548 which authorizes said Director with the approval of the President, may contain provisions
of Public Works, with the approval of the Secretary of Public controlling or regulating the construction of buildings or
Works and Communications, to promulgate rules and other structures within a reasonable distance from along the
regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on national roads. Such roads may be temporarily closed to any
national roads; that on August 2, 1940, the Director of Public or all classes of traffic by the Director of Public Works and
Works, in his first indorsement to the Secretary of Public his duly authorized representatives whenever the condition of
Works and Communications, recommended to the latter the the road or the traffic thereon makes such action necessary or
approval of the recommendation made by the Chairman of advisable in the public convenience and interest, or for a
the National Traffic Commission as aforesaid, with the specified period, with the approval of the Secretary of Public
modification that the closing of Rizal Avenue to traffic to Works and Communications.”
animal-drawn vehicles be limited to the portion thereof The above provisions of law do not confer legislative power
extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to upon the Director of Public Works and the Secretary of
Azcarraga Street; that on August 10, 1940, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The authority therein
Public Works and Communications, in his second conferred upon them and
indorsement addressed to the Director of Public Works,
approved the recommendation of the latter that Rosario Street under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now
and Rizal Avenue be closed to traffic of animal-drawn complained of is not to determine what public policy
vehicles, between the points and during the hours as above demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid
indicated, for a period of one year from the date of the down by the National Assembly in said Act, to wit, “to
opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic; that the Mayor of promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on, roads
Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have and streets designated as national roads by acts of the
enforced and caused to be enforced the rules and regulations National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of
thus adopted; that as a consequence of such enforcement, all the Philippines” and to close them temporarily to any or all
animal-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pick up classes of traffic “whenever the condition of the road or the
passengers in the places above- mentioned to the detriment traffic makes such action necessary or advisable in the public
not only of their owners but of the riding public as well. It is convenience and interest.” The delegated power, if at all,
contended by the petitioner that Commonwealth Act No. 548 therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be,
by which the Director of Public Works, with the approval of but merely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, is upon which the application of said law is to be predicated. To
authorized to promulgate rules and regulations for the promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads

and to determine when and how long a national road should business and occupations. Persons and property may be
be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to
traffic thereon and the requirements of public convenience secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state
and interest, is an administrative function which cannot be (U.S. vs. Gomez Jesus, 31 Phil., 218). To this fundamental
directly discharged by the National Assembly. It must depend aim of our Government the rights of the individual are
on the discretion of some other government official to whom subordinated. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a
is confided the duty of determining whether the proper misery, but liberty should not be made to prevail over
occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot be said authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither
that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law. should authority be made to prevail over liberty because then
As was said in Locke’s Appeal (72 Pa. 491): “To assert that a
law is less than a law, because it is made to depend on a the individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should
future event or act, is to rob the Legislature of the power to achieve the required balance of liberty and authority in his
act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed mind through education and personal discipline, so that there
relating to a state of affairs not yet developed, or to things may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means
future and impossible to fully know.” The proper distinction peace and order and happiness for all. The moment greater
the court said was this: “The Legislature cannot delegate its authority is conferred upon the government, logically so
power to make the law; but it can make a law to delegate a much is withdrawn from the residuum of liberty which
power to determine some fact or state of things upon which resides in the people. The paradox lies in the fact that the
the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To apparent curtailment of liberty is precisely the very means of
deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There insuring its preservation.
are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must The scope of police power keeps expanding as civilization
depend which cannot be known to the law-making power, advances. As was said in the case of Dobbins vs. Los
and, must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and Angeles (195 U.S. 223, 238; 49 L. ed. 169), “the right to
determination outside of the halls of legislation.” (Field vs. exercise the police power is a continuing one, and a business
Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 694; 36 L. Ed. 294.) lawful today may in the future, because of the changed
In the case of People vs. Rosenthal and Osmeña, G.R. Nos. situation, the growth of population or other causes, become a
46076 and 46077, promulgated June 12, 1939, and in menace to the public health and welfare, and be required to
Pangasinan Transportation vs. The Public Service yield to the public good.” And in People vs. Pomar (46 Phil.,
Commission, G.R. No. 47065, promulgated 440), it was observed that “advancing civilization is bringing
June 26, 1940, this Court had occasion to observe that the within the police power of the state today things which were
principle of separation of powers has been made to adapt not thought of as being within such power yesterday. The
itself to the complexities of modern governments, giving rise development of civilization, the rapidly increasing
to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of population, the growth of public opinion, with an increasing
“subordinate legislation,” not only in the United States and desire on the part of the masses and of the government to
England but in practically all modern governments. look after and care for the interests of the individuals of the
Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the state, have brought within the police power many questions
multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations, for regulation which formerly were not so considered.”
and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, the The petitioner finally avers that the rules and regulations
rigidity of the theory of separation of governmental powers complained of infringe upon the constitutional precept
has, to a large extent, been relaxed by permitting the regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-
delegation of greater powers by the legislative and vesting a being and economic security of all the people. The promotion
larger amount of discretion in administrative and executive of social justice, however, is to be achieved not through a
officials, not only in the execution of the laws, but also in the mistaken sympathy towards any given group. Social justice is
promulgation of certain rules and regulations calculated to “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
promote public interest. The petitioner further contends that anarchy,” but the humanization of laws and the equalization
the rules and regulations promulgated by the respondents of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in
pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 548 its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be
constitute an unlawful interference with legitimate business approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the
or trade and abridge the right to personal liberty and freedom welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
of locomotion. Commonwealth Act No. 548 was passed by measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
the National Assembly in the exercise of the paramount competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a
police power of the state. Said Act, by virtue of which the proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations
rules and regulations complained of were promulgated, aims of the members of the community, constitutionally, through
to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-
national roads, in the interest and convenience of the public. constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying
In enacting said law, therefore, the National Assembly was the existence of all governments on the time-honored
prompted by considerations of public convenience and principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
welfare. It was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion of Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition
traffic. which is, to say the least, a menace to public safety. of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse
Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of units of a society and of the protection that should be equally
said law, and the state in order to promote the general welfare and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our
may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and

paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, in order to promote the general welfare." 5 As defined, it
comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or
greatest good to the greatest number.” property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Writ of Prohibition capable of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled
Prayed for is hereby denied, with costs against the petitioner. in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace.
So ordered. "Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times,
Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz and Horrilleno, JJ., concur. even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides
enough room for an efficient and flexible response to
conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest
benefits." 6
G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988 It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE that it does not owe its origin to the Charter. Along with the
EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner, taxing power and eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact
vs. of statehood and sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON as Secretary of Labor government that has enabled it to perform the most vital
and Employment, and TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, as functions of governance. Marshall, to whom the expression
Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment has been credited, 7 refers to it succinctly as the plenary power
Administration, respondents. of the State "to govern its citizens." 8
Gutierrez & Alo Law Offices for petitioner. "The police power of the State ... is a power coextensive with
self- protection, and it is not inaptly termed the "law of
SARMIENTO, J.: overwhelming necessity." It may be said to be that inherent
The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all
Inc. (PASEI, for short), a firm "engaged principally in the things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society." 9
recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas It constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights.
placement," 1 challenges the Constitutional validity of According to Fernando, it is "rooted in the conception that men
Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the Department of in organizing the state and imposing upon its government
Labor and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend
GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF thereby to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to
DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this petition for certiorari and calculated to ensure communal peace, safety, good order, and
prohibition. Specifically, the measure is assailed for welfare." 10 Significantly, the Bill of Rights itself does not
"discrimination against males or females;" 2 that it "does not purport to be an absolute guaranty of individual rights and
apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and liberties "Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not
females with similar skills;" 3 and that it is violative of the right unrestricted license to act according to one's will." 11 It is
to travel. It is held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the subject to the far more overriding demands and requirements
lawmaking power, police power being legislative, and not of the greater number.
executive, in character. Notwithstanding its extensive sweep, police power is not
In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section 3, of without its own limitations. For all its awesome consequences,
Article XIII, of the Constitution, providing for worker it may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. Otherwise,
participation "in policy and decision-making processes and in that event, it defeats the purpose for which it is
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law." exercised, that is, to advance the public good. Thus, when the
4
Department Order No. 1, it is contended, was passed in the power is used to further private interests at the expense of the
absence of prior consultations. It is claimed, finally, to be in citizenry, there is a clear misuse of the power. 12
violation of the Charter's non-impairment clause, in addition In the light of the foregoing, the petition must be dismissed.
to the "great and irreparable injury" that PASEI members face As a general rule, official acts enjoy a presumed vahdity. 13 In
should the Order be further enforced. the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,
On May 25, 1988, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the the presumption logically stands.
respondents Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, filed a contested measure should be nullified. There is no question
Comment informing the Court that on March 8, 1988, the that Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female contract
respondent Labor Secretary lifted the deployment ban in the workers," 14 but it does not thereby make an undue
states of Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Canada, Hongkong, United discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that
States, Italy, Norway, Austria, and Switzerland. * In "equality before the law" under the Constitution 15 does not
submitting the validity of the challenged "guidelines," the import a perfect Identity of rights among all men and women.
Solicitor General invokes the police power of the Philippine It admits of classifications, provided that (1) such
State. classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are
It is admitted that Department Order No. 1 is in the nature of a germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined
police power measure. The only question is whether or not it to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all
is valid under the Constitution. members of the same class. 16
The concept of police power is well-established in this The Court is satisfied that the classification made-the
jurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state authority to enact preference for female workers — rests on substantial
legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property distinctions.

As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the depending on the circumstances of each case. Accordingly, it
unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad, provides:
especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working 9. LIFTING OF SUSPENSION. — The Secretary of Labor
conditions marked by, in not a few cases, physical and and Employment (DOLE) may, upon recommendation of the
personal abuse. The sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), lift
migrant Filipina workers, even rape and various forms of the suspension in countries where there are:
torture, confirmed by testimonies of returning workers, are 1. Bilateral agreements or understanding with the Philippines,
compelling motives for urgent Government action. As and/or,
precisely the caretaker of Constitutional rights, the Court is 2. Existing mechanisms providing for sufficient safeguards to
called upon to protect victims of exploitation. In fulfilling that ensure the welfare and protection of Filipino workers. 19
duty, the Court sustains the Government's efforts. The Court finds, finally, the impugned guidelines to be
The same, however, cannot be said of our male workers. In the applicable to all female domestic overseas workers. That it
first place, there is no evidence that, except perhaps for does not apply to "all Filipina workers" 20 is not an argument
isolated instances, our men abroad have been afflicted with an for unconstitutionality. Had the ban been given universal
Identical predicament. The petitioner has proffered no applicability, then it would have been unreasonable and
argument that the Government should act similarly with arbitrary. For obvious reasons, not all of them are similarly
respect to male workers. The Court, of course, is not circumstanced. What the Constitution prohibits is the singling
impressing some male chauvinistic notion that men are out of a select person or group of persons within an existing
superior to women. What the Court is saying is that it was class, to the prejudice of such a person or group or resulting in
largely a matter of evidence (that women domestic workers are an unfair advantage to another person or group of persons. To
being ill-treated abroad in massive instances) and not upon apply the ban, say exclusively to workers deployed by A, but
some fanciful or arbitrary yardstick that the Government acted not to those recruited by B, would obviously clash with the
in this case. It is evidence capable indeed of unquestionable equal protection clause of the Charter. It would be a classic
demonstration and evidence this Court accepts. The Court case of what Chase refers to as a law that "takes property from
cannot, however, say the same thing as far as men are A and gives it to B." 21 It would be an unlawful invasion of
concerned. There is simply no evidence to justify such an property rights and freedom of contract and needless to state,
inference. Suffice it to state, then, that insofar as classifications an invalid act. 22 (Fernando says: "Where the classification is
are concerned, this Court is content that distinctions are borne based on such distinctions that make a real difference as
by the evidence. Discrimination in this case is justified. infancy, sex, and stage of civilization of minority groups, the
As we have furthermore indicated, executive determinations better rule, it would seem, is to recognize its validity only if
are generally final on the Court. Under a republican regime, it the young, the women, and the cultural minorities are singled
is the executive branch that enforces policy. For their part, the out for favorable treatment. There would be an element of
courts decide, in the proper cases, whether that policy, or the unreasonableness if on the contrary their status that calls for
manner by which it is implemented, agrees with the the law ministering to their needs is made the basis of
Constitution or the laws, but it is not for them to question its discriminatory legislation against them. If such be the case, it
wisdom. As a co-equal body, the judiciary has great respect for would be difficult to refute the assertion of denial of equal
determinations of the Chief Executive or his subalterns, protection." 23 In the case at bar, the assailed Order clearly
especially when the legislature itself has specifically given accords protection to certain women workers, and not the
them enough room on how the law should be effectively contrary.)
enforced. In the case at bar, there is no gainsaying the fact, and It is incorrect to say that Department Order No. 1 prescribes a
the Court will deal with this at greater length shortly, that total ban on overseas deployment. From scattered provisions
Department Order No. 1 implements the rule-making powers of the Order, it is evident that such a total ban has hot been
granted by the Labor Code. But what should be noted is the contemplated. We quote:
fact that in spite of such a fiction of finality, the Court is on its 5. AUTHORIZED DEPLOYMENT-The deployment of
own persuaded that prevailing conditions indeed call for a domestic helpers and workers of similar skills defined herein
deployment ban. to the following [sic] are authorized under these guidelines and
There is likewise no doubt that such a classification is germane are exempted from the suspension.
to the purpose behind the measure. Unquestionably, it is the 5.1 Hirings by immediate members of the family of Heads of
avowed objective of Department Order No. 1 to "enhance the State and Government;
protection for Filipino female overseas workers" 17 this Court 5.2 Hirings by Minister, Deputy Minister and the other senior
has no quarrel that in the midst of the terrible mistreatment government officials; and
Filipina workers have suffered abroad, a ban on deployment 5.3 Hirings by senior officials of the diplomatic corps and duly
will be for their own good and welfare. accredited international organizations.
The Order does not narrowly apply to existing conditions. 5.4 Hirings by employers in countries with whom the
Rather, it is intended to apply indefinitely so long as those Philippines have [sic] bilateral labor agreements or
conditions exist. This is clear from the Order itself ("Pending understanding.
review of the administrative and legal measures, in the xxx xxx xxx
Philippines and in the host countries . . ."18), meaning to say 7. VACATIONING DOMESTIC HELPERS AND
that should the authorities arrive at a means impressed with a WORKERS OF SIMILAR SKILLS--Vacationing domestic
greater degree of permanency, the ban shall be lifted. As a helpers and/or workers of similar skills shall be allowed to
stop-gap measure, it is possessed of a necessary malleability, process with the POEA and leave for worksite only if they are
returning to the same employer to finish an existing or partially

and humane. again. suspension and the provision of these guidelines. At some 30 point the parties began negotiating the economic provisions of "Protection to labor" does not signify the promotion of their CBA but this ended in a deadlock. must submit to the cases are the Union officers[if !supportFootnotes][1][endif] and their demands and necessities of the State's power of regulation. reported the strike vote to the DOLE and. What concerns the Constitution more to file a notice of strike. the right itself is not absolute.." 26 pursuant to the ABAD. It is appeal from the order reinstating them. The consequence the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the right. The other parties to these right granted by this provision. The interest the suspension in countries where there are: of the State is to provide a decent living to its citizens. illegally staged strike upon the employment status of the union The disputed Order is a valid qualification thereto. 155109 implementation of the Labor Code. (the Company) is a powers in the enforcement whereof. where laissez faire has never been fully accepted worksite to serve a new employer shall be covered by the as a controlling economic way of life. a writ of certain countries as manifested by the Solicitor General. Government has convinced the Court in this case that this is its and/or. to the requirements of "public safety. the During the strike. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE. but it does not mean that such an authority may not be lawfully The Facts and the Case delegated. We do not find the impugned Order to be tainted with a 2. 31 Freedom of contract and enterprise. The right to travel is subject. intent. and impeding by barricade the entry of indiscriminately made use of its authority. No costs. is not free from restrictions. In the ordinary sequence of events. after hearing. the just. As we have mentioned. 27 The petitioner assumes that it is unreasonable simply because of its impact on the right to This case is about a) the consequences of an travel. After efforts at conciliation by the paramountly is that such an employment be above all. while away from home. J. Existing mechanisms providing for sufficient safeguards to grave abuse of discretion to warrant the extraordinary relief ensure the welfare and protection of Filipino workers. hold no strike and no lockout in the course of its life. The Companys rank and file employees." "as may be C. the petition is DISMISSED. 1 constitutes an invalid exercise of legislative power. preliminary injunction. Commission (NLRC) to enjoin the strikers from intimidating. among other things. an evidence the petitioner cannot the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction with prayer for seriously dispute.: respondent Department of Labor's rule-making authority vested in it by the Labor Code. Under these circumstances. personally and economically. molesting.served employment contract. But petitioner. after the observance the Government is duty-bound to insure that our toiling of the mandatory cooling-off period. 3. It is bad enough that the country has to send Union conducted a strike vote that resulted in an its sons and daughters to strange lands because it cannot satisfy overwhelming majority of its members favoring it. upon recommendation of the business firms. Alcantara & Sons. prompting the Union employment alone. LIFTING OF SUSPENSION-The Secretary of Labor and Government. The 1. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) failed. Bilateral agreements or understanding with the Philippines. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons- worker participation "in policy and decision-making processes SPFL (the Union) is the exclusive bargaining agent of the affecting their rights and benefits" 29 is not well-taken. It is not contested non-striking employees at the Companys premises. in particular. 1 is a valid G. but as we have stated. more so in this implementation possible. must yield to the loftier purposes targetted by the several attempts to implement the writ failed. the Union filed a . however. officers and its ordinary members and b) the right of reinstated Neither is there merit in the contention that Department Order union members to go back to work pending the companys No. true that police power is the domain of the legislature. The Court finds furthermore that the Government has not threatening. striking members. like all intervention of law enforcement units made such other freedoms. its basic policy to "afford protection to labor.[if !supportFootnotes][2][endif] The Constitution declares that: Sec. expatriates have adequate protection. vs CA provided by law.R. and promote full Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that bound them to employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. 24 prayed for. Meantime. enjoining the Union and its officers The non-impairment clause of the Constitution. went on strike. decent. Only the Government. INC. Those workers returning to jurisdiction. local and The Company and the Union entered into a overseas. 28 domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and The petitioners's reliance on the Constitutional guaranty of processing of plywood.. This Court understands the grave implications the questioned xxx xxx xxx Order has on the business of recruitment. organized and unorganized. Inc. it has precisely ordered an indefinite with the National Labor Relations ban on deployment. the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) Ex Parte[if !supportFootnotes][3][endif] and as part of its duty. invoked by the and members from performing the acts complained of. the Labor Code itself vests the Department of Labor and Employment with rulemaking C. is not necessarily to maintain profits of Employment (DOLE) may. lift that suffer as a result of Government regulation. The State shall afford full protection to labor. No. In this case. ALCANTARA & SONS. of the lack or inadequacy of such protection. The NLRC that it has in fact removed the prohibition with respect to first issued a 20-day TRO and." 25 Department Order No. The concern of the 9. the Company filed a petition for Government has evidence. it is profits Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The Union their employment needs at home.

questioned the declaration of illegality of the strike as well as the dismissal of The Issues Presented its officers and the order for them to pay damages. that the Union members involved. On February 8. who were identified in the 2. parties. no lockout. and damages. ordered jurisdiction over the persons of the individual Union members the Union officers terminated. The Union did not November 21.00 plus 10% interest and attorneys fees.000.R. Whether or not the NLRC properly acquired Arbiter insofar as the latter declared the strike illegal. 2002. provision. At any rate.[if !supportFootnotes][8][endif] affirming that of the Labor 1. the contemplated illegal dismissal or termination cases and not Company did not reinstate them. however. the affected are entitled to accrued backwages and separation pay. damages to the Company. 2003. from the Labor Arbiters decision of June 29. computation of their backwages based on the CA decision. thus denying their motion for computation. and 155109 and 155135. 2002 void for lack of factual and legal basis but ordered the On June 29. filed a petition relations between the terminated Union members and the with the Regional Arbitration Board to declare the Unions Company had been severely strained by the prolonged strike illegal. on the other hand. provision of their CBA. pay. The Union also resolution[if !supportFootnotes][12][endif] to the NLRC.[if !supportFootnotes][13][endif] the Union members included in the amended petition. 1999 the NLRC rendered a decision. questioning the preliminary injunction order. the Labor Arbiter issued a resolution dated 1999 the latter court dismissed the petition.[if !supportFootnotes][16][endif] On June 29. The Labor Arbiter thus approved the Company amended its petition to implead the named Union computation and payment of their separation pay and denied members who allegedly committed prohibited acts during the all their other claims. accrued wages. 1999 the terminated Union members dismissing the petition. the delay in the resolution of the dispute and the impracticability of reinstatement owing to the fact that the The Company. 1999 the Labor Arbiter rendered a Company to pay the affected employees accrued wages and decision. 2002. in its assailed as invalid the service of summons on the individual resolution dated April 30. with the CA. NLRC declared the Labor Arbiters resolution of November 21. strike. payment of separation pay to such Union members strike. should also be terminated for strike. The NLRC ruled. respectively. the CA rendered a decision on February 24. decision. however.[if !supportFootnotes][10][endif] annulling 4. For their part. Assuming the strike to be illegal. respect to the striking Union members. having committed prohibited and illegal acts. finding no proof that they actually committed illegal acts during the strike. After hearing.[if !supportFootnotes][14][endif] modifying its earlier resolution by with the Company and that they should pay actual damages of deleting the grant of accrued wages and 13th month pay to the P3. 3. Whether or not the Union staged an illegal proceedings held in the case. 5. The CA ruled that the reinstatement promptly filed a motion for their immediate reinstatement but pending appeal provided under Article 223 of the Labor Code the Labor Arbiter did not act on the same. Union members filed with the Labor Arbiter a motion for reinstatement pending appeal by the parties and the The Rulings of the Court . are entitled to the payment of backwages on account of the The Company and the Union with its officers and members Companys refusal to reinstate them. the Labor Arbiter held that the Union parties.petition[if !supportFootnotes][4][endif] with the Court of Appeals (CA). whether or not The Union filed a petition for certiorari[if the impleaded Union members committed illegal acts during !supportFootnotes][9][endif] with the CA. questioning the NLRCs The Labor Arbiter denied the Unions counterclaim for lack of denial of the terminated Union members claim for separation merit. and other benefits. Whether or not the terminated Union members During the pendency of these cases.[if !supportFootnotes][6][endif] declaring the Unions strike 13th month pay considering the Companys refusal to reinstate illegal for violating the CBAs no strike. officers should be deemed to have forfeited their employment 2003. ordering the reinstatement of the terminated Union members The Company impugned the Labor Arbiters decision insofar and the payment of their wages and other benefits had no basis. Whether or not the terminated Union members the NLRC decision and reinstating that of the Labor Arbiter. the Union sought intervention by this Court. Subsequently.[if !supportFootnotes][11][endif] holding that due to appeal from such dismissal. as it ordered the reinstatement of the terminated Union Aggrieved. members. The Union. on the other hand. its officers. the CA ruled that the resolution !supportFootnotes][7][endif] the Labor Arbiters decision to the NLRC.[if !supportFootnotes][5][endif] citing its violation of the no litigation. With subject employees. Both parties appealed[if cases under Article 263. the Union. Initially. 2005. The issues presented in these cases are: On November 8. the CA rendered a decision on March 20. Finding merit in the petition. no lockout. questioning the NLRC the strike. Thus. pending appeal by the filed separate petitions for review of the CA decision in G. the was in order. the Upon the Unions petition for certiorari[if !supportFootnotes][15][endif] Labor Arbiter ordered their reinstatement without backwages. and its affected members filed against the Company a counterclaim for unfair Both parties appealed the Labor Arbiters labor practices. illegal dismissal. On motion for reconsideration by both As a consequence. them pending appeal.825. and directed them to pay impleaded in the case. 1999. justifying their termination from employment. the NLRC issued a resolution on August 29.

he observed that the conciliation. the member has taken part in an illegal strike. Such refusal that the dismissed rank and file Union members committed cannot of course frustrate the NLRCs acquisition of illegal acts. Since the CA held that the existence of criminal complaints against the Union members did not Two. The Sheriff of the NLRC said in his voluntary modes in settling Report[if !supportFootnotes][21][endif] that. the for one reason or another does not extinguish their liability Union officers can. This includes the shop admission of the affidavits. clearly identified. b. in the course of his disputes. in accordance with law be terminated under the Labor Code. The NLRC acquires jurisdiction over parties in cases power over the men in their respective work units. Here. the NLRC found following the injunction hearing jurisdiction over them. The mere fact that the criminal complaints against the terminated Union members were subsequently dismissed Three. b. Nor does such dismissal bar the from employment for their actions. the photos taken of the strike show the strikers. a non-striking employee. no lockout provision that enjoined both a. officers. shared responsibility between workers and Cornelio Caguiat.[if !supportFootnotes][20][endif] 81[if !supportFootnotes][18][endif] impleaded Union members were served with summons. he filed criminal actions against them. and Section 3. Ruben Tungapalan. They resisted settle disputes. Social justice is not one. Tungapalan. and shall striking employees blocked the exit lane of the Alson drive enforce their mutual with their tent. performed an of Summons[if !supportFootnotes][17][endif] indicated that 74 out of the illegal act or acts during the strike. such as a no The striking Union members allegedly committed strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause. it becomes necessary for the Court to union has complied with the strict requirements for staging go into the records to settle the issue. from the company Indeed. and employers and the Eufracio Rabusa depicted the above prohibited acts in their preferential use of affidavits and testimonies. sided. The Return of Service that such a union member. disputes. although the Labor Arbiter found no proof summons or to acknowledge receipt of the same. and the CA substantial evidence in support of the termination of the regarding the illegality of the strike. Indeed. These constitute from the findings of the Labor Arbiter. Since the Unions strike has been declared illegal. them as such and placed them in positions of leadership and One. Besides. coerced. subject Union members. properly identified. documents. A strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor warrant their dismissal. before it either by summons served on them or by their voluntary appearance before its Labor Arbiter. compliance therewith to identified the Union members who threatened and coerced foster industrial peace. Article XIII. office in Davao City. suppliers and customers. The technical grounds that . one as provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code when the same is held contrary to an existing agreement. including implementation of the writ of injunction. the CBA between the parties contained a no strike. They cannot be shielded from the coverage of to establish their identity and guilt during the hearing of the Article 264 of the Labor Code since the Union appointed petition to declare the strike illegal. and photos presented stewards. him. It must be shown records show that they were so served. Lastly. the NLRC. The Court finds no compelling reason to depart committing the acts complained of. They the Union and the Company from resorting to the use of threatened. for which they had in fact been sought affirmative relief in the course of the proceedings like criminally charged before various courts and the prosecutors an award of damages in their favor. while As regards the rank and file Union members. But they refused either to accept the Here. and economic weapons available to them under the law and to intimidated non-striking instead take recourse to voluntary arbitration in settling their employees.[if the following prohibited acts: !supportFootnotes][19][endif] Here. It cannot be used as a badge for not complying with a lawful agreement. the Union insists that summons were not properly served on Article 264 of the Labor Code provides that termination from the impleaded Union members with respect to the Companys employment is not warranted by the mere fact that a union amended petition that sought to declare the strike illegal. They No law or public policy prohibits the Union and obstructed the free the Company from mutually waiving the strike and lockout ingress to and egress maces available to them to give way to voluntary arbitration. the affected Union members in NLRC IC M-000126-98 that the Union members concerned voluntarily entered their appearance in the case when they committed such acts. no less than the 1987 Constitution recognizes in premises. preferential use of voluntary means to c. Thus and defied the implementation of the writ of The State shall preliminary injunction promote the principle of issued against the strikers.

155135 for lack of merit. The Court DENIES all other defines the powers of Labor Arbiters. certain circumstances that warrant the grant of some on November 8. the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiters relief in favor of the terminated Union members based on reinstatement order. cannot but apply to all terminations irrespective of the grounds on which they are ST. the award of financial assistance to these Union members in the form of one-half month salary for every year of service to Both parties appealed the Labor Arbiters above the company up to the date of their termination as equitable ruling[if !supportFootnotes][23][endif] to the NLRC. after about four months or justice. Still. In place of reinstatement.R. Article 217. on March 20. the Labor Code. The appealed the NLRC ruling to the CA on behalf of its Court. jurisdiction over all termination cases. therefore.[if !supportFootnotes][24][endif] It will be recalled that after the Labor Arbiter a period of four months and nine days. Consequently. that the equity. which decision ordered the reinstatement of the terminated Union members. 179220 and ORDERS C. and however. 2002.[if !supportFootnotes][22][endif] Here. And this prompted the Considering this. The Companys failure to do so makes it liable appeals from the Labor Arbiters decision. Inc. Labor Arbiter ordered the Company to pay them their Taking these circumstances in consideration. pending appeal. the striking employees affected Union members to again file with the Labor Arbiter a breach of certain restrictions imposed on their concerted motion for their reinstatement pending appeal. as it turned out and reasonable.R. The terminated Union members contend that. But. It instead ordered the Company to pay the terminated Union members their WHEREFORE. on the other hand. which provides that the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed employee shall immediately be executory pending appeal. for accrued backwages until the eventual reversal of the order of reinstatement by the NLRC on November 8. Company had resisted a standing order of reinstatement directed at it at this point. 1999.[if !supportFootnotes][25][endif] Labor Arbiters reinstatement order. As it happened. the Court DENIES the petition of the accrued wages and 13th month pay considering its refusal to Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL and its officers reinstate them pending appeal. 1999. acting on actions at their employers doorsteps cannot be regarded as so the motion. since the pending appeal. MARYS ACADEMY OF DIPOLOG CITY. with interest of 12% per annum from the time this Articles 282 to 284 are based on the employees conduct in decision becomes final and executory until such backwages connection with his assigned work.R. in furtherance of the laws policy of compassionate act on the motion. the reinstatement pending appeal provided under Article 223 of the Labor Code contemplated illegal dismissal or Further. especially strikes. On motion for reconsideration.R. SP 59604 dated March 20. 2002 the CA restored the result in unpleasant. 155109 and REINSTATES the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in The CA denied reinstatement for the reason that NLRC CA M-004996-99 dated November 8. whatever be the grounds given for the termination of employment. the NLRC did not also favor reinstatement. vests in the latter claims. But this petition of the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL and perceived distinction does not find support in the provisions of their dismissed members in G. the Company had the duty under Article 223 Company refused to reinstate them after the Labor Arbiter to immediately reinstate the affected employees even if it rendered a decision in their favor.[if !supportFootnotes][26][endif] severely strained relation between the company and the The records also fail to disclose any past terminated Union members. the grounds for termination under termination. Alcantara & Sons. which and separation pays are paid. and members in G. terminated members but the CA denied their appeal. vs based. rendered his decision on June 29. always generate a throng of odium and abhorrence that sometimes Of course. the Company should be intended to appeal from the decision ordaining such ordered to pay them their wages during the pendency of the reinstatement. Five.the Union interposed for denying admission of the photos are also not binding on the NLRC. It cannot be said. Inc. the Labor Arbiter resolved at this point that inherently wicked that the employer can totally disregard their reinstatement was no longer practicable because of the long years of service prior to such breach. Alcantara & Sons. But. Palacio . the NLRC reconsidered and deleted altogether the REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of grant of accrued wages and 13th month pay. the infractions committed by the dismissed Union members. Article 223. Bitter labor disputes. SO ORDERED. GRANTS the petition of C. On the other hand. to pay the terminated Union members backwages for four (4) months and nine (9) days and The grounds for termination under Article 264 are separation pays equivalent to one-half month salary for every based on prohibited acts that employees could commit during year of service to the company up to the date of their a strike. But the Labor Arbiter did not for some reason there are. the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the termination cases and not cases under Article 264. consequences. although the Labor Arbiter failed to act on the terminated Union members motion for reinstatement Four. the Court regards separation pays. in G. 1999. although unwanted. The Union Appeals in CA-G. While it is true that generally the grant of separation the latter promptly filed a motion for their reinstatement pay is not available to employees who are validly dismissed. 1999.

City (petitioner) assails the Decision[if !supportFootnotes][2][endif] dated September 24. in violation of Marie Santander (Santander). on the other hand. the doctrine regarding the prospective application of laws. Palacio. petitioner was ordered to reinstate the respondents or to the Resolution[if !supportFootnotes][5][endif] dated August 31. 2000. as terminated the complainants non-board passers. as the aforesaid law provides for exceptions to the taking of 2. In separate letters dated March rendered: 31.[if !supportFootnotes][6][endif] however. maintained that it had repeatedly G.R. which affirmed with modification the On September 22. 2001 pay them separation pay at the rate of month wage for every denying the motion for reconsideration. constitutional right to security of tenure. No. Petitioner. the Labor Arbiter adjudged petitioner Resolution[if !supportFootnotes][4][endif] of the National Labor guilty of illegal dismissal because it terminated the services of Relations Commission (NLRC). 1997. separation pay is by petitioner on the same ground. S. Elaine registration of teachers as professional teachers. 2000 which was clearly prior to the dismissal of respondents Teresita Palacio (Palacio).[if !supportFootnotes][9][endif] reinstatement and backwages in accordance with the Together with four other classroom teachers namely Gail mandate of Article 279 of the Josephine Padilla (Padilla).R. respondents Calibod. 2000. respondents filed a hereby directed against complaint contesting their termination as highly irregular and respondent together with the premature. They admitted that they are indeed non-board payment of limited passers. Culture and Sports (DECS) Memorandum No. they also argued that their security of tenure backwages. and Ma. 2000.] 27[if !supportFootnotes][8][endif] of Republic Act (RA) No. plus limited backwages covering the period from March 31. Further. the September 19. dated April 30. Marys Academy of Dipolog terminated in the middle of the school year. Dolores Montederamos (Montederamos) as illegal. petitioner claimed that it decided to terminate their services as early as March 31. 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- G. 2001 holding the respondents on March 31. year of service. as particularly could not simply be trampled upon for their failure to register reflected in paragraph 2 with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) or to pass hereof. 2000. as guidance counselor. In this case. the LET prior to the deadline set by RA 7836. J. 2000 to September 30. 2000 because it By this Petition for Review on Certiorari. Laquio. and respondent premises. 164913 informed respondents of their obligation to comply with the DEL CASTILLO. complainants their petitioners retention and acceptance of other teachers who do separation pay and limited not also possess the required eligibility showed evident bad backwages. as well as Thus. According to petitioner. however. The dispositive Factual Antecedents portion of the Labor Arbiters Decision reads as follows: On different dates in the late 1990s. Levie Laquio (Laquio). Labor Code of the Alma Decipulo (Decipulo). the interest 600. 67691. 7836. SP No. 1998[if !supportFootnotes][7][endif] which requires incumbent restricted just and authorized teachers to register as professional teachers pursuant to Section causes provided for by law[.[if !supportFootnotes][11][endif] who were similarly dismissed however.) [endif]t not be accepted because they failed to pass the Licensure hat respondents act of having Examination for Teachers (LET). While The Court will not hesitate to defend the workers the DECS Memorandum. 10. 2003 and Resolution[if !supportFootnotes][3][endif] Ruling of the Labor Arbiter dated August 16. After all. Saile and anchored on the foregoing Montederamos. as it is not Education.[if !supportFootnotes][10][endif] and Marlynn Philippines. Santander.) [endif] examination. hence. Furthermore. pursuant to PRC Resolution No. entitling otherwise known as the Philippine Teachers complainants to the right of Professionalization Act of 1994.[if !supportFootnotes][13][endif] compassion under the policy of social justice. Eliza Saile (Saile). petitioner hired WHEREFORE. as classroom teachers. petitioner informed them that their re-application for school year 2000-2001 could 1. indicated as follows: . particularly faith in terminating respondents. 2000 deadline fixed by PRC for the Marigen Calibod (Calibod). illegal because some of them possessed civil service Marys Academy to pay eligibilities and special permits to teach.[if !supportFootnotes][12][endif] fixed the deadline for of the workers is paramount as they are regarded with teachers to register on September 19. they opined that their outright dismissal was ordering respondent St. respondents could not continue practicing employment is in fact and in their teaching profession pursuant to the Department of law illegal. founded on any of the S. Virgilio Andalahao (Andalahao). judgment is hereby Palacio.: mandate of the Memorandum issued by DECS by passing the LET to be eligible as a registered professional teacher.[if would be prejudicial to the school if their services will be !supportFootnotes][1][endif] petitioner St.

. S. . . . 1998. . . . .740. . .00.) Limited backwages . . .00. . .) Limited backwages . .313.00.60.512. .[if !supportFootnotes][14][endif] D. not question the merits of the Labor Arbiters Decision but b. .[if !supportFootnotes][15][endif] petitioner insisted on the validity P 38. . cannot be removed unless for cause. .) Separation pay . Dolores P 15. . contribution because this was not alleged in the original P 6. . then. . .00.253. . . . Ruling of the Court of Appeals P 32.00. . . . .) Limited backwages . . . . P 32.20.175. . .435.) Separation pay . .56. P 8. Total . .[if !supportFootnotes][17][endif] G.205. . . . .175. . B. . . .) Limited backwages . b. . . . . . P 38. . . a.) Separation pay . 27. . . .977. . P 35. . .) [endif]dismissing all other money 26.349. . . .) Separation pay . . .284. .512. Both parties appealed to the NLRC. . . . . . . Appeal.04. did a.) Limited backwages . . . . . . .) Separation pay . . . . . .00. .) Separation pay .) Marlynn Palacio: P 11. . .) Limited backwages .56. . b. . . . C. . . . that it cannot sustain petitioners premature implementation of Total . 25.290. .00. . . .307.740. .) Limited backwages . . . .) [endif]Ma. . . .030. . . . . . . .) Separation pay .) Eliza certiorari. .349. Total . . . .) Elaine Marie Santander: Memorandum No. . such act being in compliance with RA 7836 and in accordance with DECS E. . . . . . . . .837. . it held that the grounds relied upon by petitioner to dismiss respondents are not among those enumerated by the F. . . . P 48. . . payment of attorneys fees. . . . .72. . Decision. 10. . . . a. . Petitioner. . a. . . . P 8. . . . . . .685. . . . [if !supportLists]3. . . .378. . . complaint as well as their prayer for attorneys fees since this 25. . . . .30.) Separation pay .) Virgilio Andalahao: Labor Code and that respondents are regular employees. The NLRC. .90.) Levei Laquio: a. . . . according to the CA. . . . . [if !supportLists]J. . A contingency plan.250. .) Limited backwages . . . . and Total .740. . .837. Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission Total . P 41. . . . SO ORDERED. . . . I. Total . . . and b.40. . P 30.) Alma Decipulo: the NLRC likewise denied petitioners a. P 11. . . case is not one for collection of unlawfully withheld wages. . b. . . In a subsequent Resolution dated August 31. . b. . .) Limited backwages . In its Memorandum of 27. for their part. . . .A. 2001. . . . . . . . . .60.435. in its Resolution[if !supportFootnotes][16][endif] dated April 26. . . . . .15.71. . P 19. b. . . . . . .40. Motion for Reconsideration.00. .456. .512.) Marigen Calibod: P 18. . .) Limited backwages . . a. laws. .20. . . In affirming the Labor Arbiters P 35. P 6. . .002.970. . . noting that respondents still had until September 19. . a. . . . . . . . .) Gail Josephine Padilla: 25. .16. . of respondents termination from service. .307. . . . . . . . . 2000 within which to pass the LET. Total .65. prayed for the refund of their retirement contribution and Total . . . elevated the case to the CA via a petition for H. . .58. . . .[if !supportFootnotes][18][endif] reiterating b. denied both appeals.06.45. . Total .512. . 27. should have instead been adopted by . . thus a. . . . respondents demand for the refund of their retirement Total . . . . . . . Respondents.) Separation pay . The NLRC did not grant b. 30. Montederamos: 26.) Teresita Palacio: 28. .) Separation pay . . . . 2001. . . . relevant laws and regulations. . . claims of complainants for lack of merit.60. . . P 4. . P 45. dismissal was effected prematurely in violation of existing b. . .00.[if !supportFootnotes][19][endif] The CA agreed with the Saile: findings of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the a.20.

petitioner in the event respondents termination from the service in the middle of the school year becomes inevitable. Accordingly. the monetary awards adjudged termination of respondents in the middle of the school year in favor of private might result in compromising the education of the students as respondents Gail Josephine well as the school operation. [is] Petitioner justifies respondents termination by advancing that hereby AFFIRMED with it would be difficult to hire licensed teachers in the middle of MODIFICATION. Sailes dismissal has legal moved to partially reconsider basis for lack of the required qualification needed for the Decision insofar as it continued practice of teaching. The petition is devoid of merit. MARIGEN such places and dates as the CALIBOD. Virgilio Andalahao. dated April 30. 13.[if !supportFootnotes][21][endif] THE professional license from the DEADLINE SET BY THE PROFESSIONAL Commission are required [REGULATION] COMMISSION FOR TEACHERS TO before any person is allowed ACQUIRE THEIR LICENSE. Petitioner further argues that it Padilla. TERMINATED IN MARCH 2000. all applicants for registration as professional Issues teachers shall be required to undergo a written I. 2001. this petition. Andalahao and Decipulo. to practice as a professional . THEY WERE ALREADY DISMISSIBLE employees. cannot hire respondents for the period covering only June to Alma Decipolo and Merlyn September as it would contravene the DECSs policy requiring Palacio whose services were written contracts of at least one years duration for teachers. The the school year as respondents replacements. September 19. otherwise specifically allowed under the provisions Hence. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED examination which shall be GRIEVOUS ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE given at least once a year in DISMISSAL OF TERESITA PALACIO.[if !supportFootnotes][22][endif] there is no illegal dismissal to speak of. Santander. ELIZA SAILE. The dismissal of Teresita Palacio. 2000 ONLY BECAUSE ON the CA found them to be mere probationary. ELAINE MARIE Board may determine upon SANTANDER. and not regular. License Required. Fifth Division school organization prior to the applicable school year. 2000 deadline set by law for respondents to the assailed Resolutions of register as professional teachers due to the need to fix the the NLRC. AT THE MOST. Except as however. Registration and from the service. WAS PREMATURE BECAUSE IT A valid certificate of WAS EFFECTED ON MARCH 31. then TEACHERS LICENSE. The CA. and Montederamos was premature and defeated Petitioner their right to security of tenure. Calibod. legally terminated. found the dismissal of herein respondents to be premature Pertinent provisions of RA 7836 provide: and prayed that respondents be declared legally dismissed SEC. SUCH DATE. Also. 2000. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN unqualified teachers who do not possess the required eligibility FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT ASSUMING THAT and allowing them to teach for the school year 2000-2001 as RESPONDENTS WERE PREMATURELY badges of bad faith. The CA also found petitioners acts of retaining and hiring other equally II. are hereby DELETED for lack Our Ruling of basis. UP TO SEPTEMBER 19. the dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: Petitioner insists that it has the right to terminate respondents services as early as March 2000 without waiting for the WHEREFORE. Examination. LEVIE LAQUIO. denied the motion. so ordered. RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES As regards Padilla. The CA also observed that petitioners ulterior motive for the termination may have been the result of a confrontation between petitioners principal and respondents. Laquio. AND DOLORES approval by the Commission. of this Act. Their employment contracts merely expired and FOR CAUSE FOR NOT HAVING OBTAINED THEIR since the petitioner did not wish to renew their contracts. Marlynn Palacio. 2000 PRIOR TO registration and a valid SEPTEMBER 20. MONTEDERAMOS.

Culture and profession in the Philippines Sports. Inhibition Against the Practice the time of the approval of of the Teaching Profession. no in education or person shall engage in its equivalent. were unable to register holder of a valid certificate within the two-year period shall be issued a five-year of registration and a valid temporary or special permit from the time the Board is professional license or a organized within which to register after passing the holder of a valid examination and complying with the requirements provided special/temporary permit. 26. elementary which to register and be included in the roster of professional or secondary level. Registration and Exception. and a this Act or who. (c) Not qualified xxxx under paragraphs one and SEC. teacher in the Philippines. Culture and Sports (DECS) a valid professional license pursuant to Presidential Decree No. two but with any of the Transitory Provision. 27. no person [if !supportLists](a) [endif]A holder of a certificate of shall practice or offer to eligibility as a teacher issued by the Civil Service practice the teaching Commission and the Department of Education. 31. to incumbent teachers in both wit: the public and private sector not otherwise certified as (1) An professional teachers by elementary or virtue of this Act. furthermore. or or be appointed as teacher to any position without having [if !supportLists](b) [endif]A registered professional previously obtained a valid teacher with the National Board for Teachers under the certificate of registration and Department of Education. That those incumbent teachers is a duly registered who are not qualified to register without examination under professional teacher. in this Act and be included in the roster of professional teachers: Provided. secondary teacher for three xxxx (3) years in good standing and a SEC. teacher shall be issued without examination as xxxx required in this Act to a qualified applicant. or from the Commission. That those who have failed Upon approval of the application and the licensure examination for professional teachers shall be payment of the prescribed fees. That they shall be given two (2) years from the defined in this Act. is: Except as otherwise allowed under this Act. further. who at SEC. unless he teachers: Provided. this Act. holder of a Two (2) years after the masters degree effectivity of this Act. or . teaching and/or act as a professional teacher as Provided. (2) An except as otherwise allowed elementary or under this Act. whether organization of the Board for professional teachers within in the preschool. and shall be assigned by the Department of Education. shall be issued by the registration and professional Board a special or temporary permit. shall be secondary given five (5) years teacher for five temporary certificates from (5) years in good the time the Board for standing and a Professional Teachers is holder of a organized within which to Bachelor of qualify as required by this Science in Act and be included in the Education or its roster of professionals. 1006. the certificate of eligible as para-teachers and as such. albeit qualified. equivalent. Culture and Sports (DECS) to license as a professional schools as it may determine under the circumstances. All following qualifications.

it is to be noted that protection to labor. First. had until September 19. allowed them to teach during the school year 2000-2001. s. the PRC formulated certain rules and employment as early as March 2000 because it would be regulations relative to the registration of teachers and their highly difficult to hire professional teachers in the middle of continued practice of the teaching profession. 1997. This finds basis on the principle September 19. failed the examination. 2000 September 19. Consequently. the dismissal from To reiterate. 2000. despite being unregistered and to comply with the mandatory requirement to register as unlicensed. BPT Resolution No.[if ! to them by law. mere reliance on the policy of DECS requiring yearly 1997 was thereafter passed to provide the guidelines[if contracts for teachers should not prevent petitioner from !supportFootnotes][23][endif] to govern teacher registration beyond retaining the services of respondents until and unless the law September 19. Because of petitioners predicament. 27 and 31 of RA 7836. Under DECS Memorandum No. 2000. The prejudice that respondents retention would professional teachers. Provisions in a implementation of Sections 26. Incidentally. the results could not be known in time to meet the It is incumbent upon this Court to afford full September 19. Petitioners intention and desire not to put the Pursuant to the aforestated law. . likewise possess the qualification and eligibility and even Thus. the deadline was moved provides for cause for respondents dismissal. Specific periods the school year as replacements for respondents without and deadlines were fixed within which incumbent teachers compromising the operation of the school and education of the must register as professional teachers in consonance with the students. even Professional Teachers (BPT). 1994 have until administrative regulations. Laquio. Petitioner claims that it terminated respondents Pursuant to RA 7836. the same should be between 1996 and 2000 to continue teaching if they obtain exercised in a manner which does not infringe on the workers temporary or special permits as para-teachers. the working class on the humane justification that those with petitioner has no right to deny them of this privilege accorded less privilege in life should have more in law. !supportFootnotes][26][endif] In other words. Under the policy of social justice. effective September 20. 2000.[if !supportFootnotes][28][endif] continue their service and register. Hence. reference to it. 2000 without violating the DECSs policy profession are duly licensed and are registered as professional requiring contracts of yearly duration for elementary and high teachers. by setting a deadline for and valid special/temporary permits can engage in teaching in registration as professional teachers. resolution and students education and school operation in jeopardy is neither memorandum. contract must be read in conjunction with statutory and incumbent teachers as of December 16. it should examination. Santander and Montederamos is unwarranted. the law requires as compared to the consequences of respondents them to register by taking and passing the licensure unemployment.[if !supportFootnotes][25][endif] only respondent dispute that it hired and retained other teachers who do not Santander passed the LET but only for the elementary level. the Board for Petitioners contentions are not tenable. 2000 was quite premature. in the be given effect for being violative of the law. valid professional licenses the deadline set by law. However. 2000. petitioner should have earlier drawn a contingency plan in the board passers when they were dismissed by petitioner on event there is need to terminate respondents services in the March 31. 1997 to only if they are not contrary to law. 600. as the law has provided a the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of specific timeframe within which respondents could comply. Laquio. school teachers. dismissal from the service of respondents Palacio. fact that even if respondents were to take the LET in August of 2000. petitioner did not on October 23. she is still unqualified to teach in the high school level. this Court will not hesitate to defend service of respondents Palacio. while we take cognizance of the the law still allows those who failed the licensure examination employers right to protect its interest. Calibod. the law has allowed both public and private schools. only holders of a decisive consideration for respondents termination prior to valid certificates of registration. incumbent teachers to practice their teaching profession until respondents.[if !supportFootnotes][27][endif] Settled is the rule that Civil Service Commission (CSC) and DECS to further allow stipulations made upon the convenience of the parties are valid those teachers who failed to register by September 19. 1998. 1997 to register as professional teachers. was compliance with DECSs directive. created under the general if respondents contracts stipulate for a period of one year in supervision and administrative control of the PRC. 2000. Petitioner harps on the respondents. Thus. The that an existing law enters into and forms part of a valid Memorandum further stated that a Memorandum of contract without the need for the parties expressly making Agreement (MOA) was subsequently entered into by the PRC. Santander respondents right to security of tenure. S. Calibod. As correctly observed by the CA. petitioner reasons out that it could not enter into essential purpose of the law in promoting good quality written contracts with respondents for the period June 2000 to education by ensuring that those who practice the teaching September 19. 10.[if !supportFootnotes][24][endif] Clearly. Based on the certification issued by the PRC middle of the school year. This All the others. have adopted measures to protect the interest of its teachers as regular employees. such stipulation could not organized on September 20. 2000 deadline.[if right to security of tenure. As respondents are categorized as those cause to the schools operation is only trivial if not speculative not qualified to register without examination. As correctly pointed out by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by the NLRC and the CA. 1995 so that. Also. except respondent Saile who is not qualified to indicates petitioners ulterior motive in hastily dismissing take the LET. The premature and Montederamos on March 31. Again. to September 19. in the case at bar. It is undisputed that respondents were all non.

1985 and May. SO ORDERED. respondents. and allowance. it is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Regional Director. SP No. Rollo). 98. represented and Children Hospital is hereby ordered to pay the above-listed by ANTERA L. Payrolls covering the periods of This contention deserves no merit. January. the employees are given food. we find her termination valid and legal. Antera Dorado. we note On July 17. cannot possibly presume that respondents could not timely were duly submitted for inspection. club itself as well as from paying patients. are already dismissible for cause for lack of the Labor Standard and Welfare Officers to inspect the records of necessary license to teach. other information gathered by the team. 34. REGION X. 2000 awarded in favor of Palacio. the CA. underpayment of wages and ECOLAs to all the petitioner's employees. It is also partly subsidized by the Philippine Charity cannot possibly obtain the needed prerequisite to allow her to Sweepstakes Office and the Cagayan De Oro City continue practicing the teaching profession. (p. was not qualified to take the LET abuse of discretion. salaries (pp. Calibod. comply with the requirements of the law. the August 29. vs. but the Limited backwages computed from March 31. this office.However.888. 77-78. November. 2000 to amount spent therefor is deducted from their respective September 30. the Labor Standard and Welfare Officers that petitioner only assailed the amount of backwages for the submitted their report confirming that there was underpayment first time in its motion for reconsideration of the Decision of of wages and ECOLAs of all the employees by the petitioner.756. Petitioner May. 1986. we take exception to the case of respondent Saile reconsideration dated May 13. Laquio. At any rate. as respondent Saile did not refute. President be ORDERED to pay the The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 24. 1983 to May 23. as alleged by petitioner. Region X. the Court cannot entertain the issue for being the dispositive portion of which reads: belatedly raised. 2000 only. the petitioner to ascertain the truth of the allegations in the complaints (p. Thus. CW-71-86. After September 19. who rendered a Decision of the respondent Secretary of Labor dated Decision on September 24. the respondent hospital is also ordered to pay its THE REGIONAL DlRECTOR OF LABOR. Petitioner has forty-one (41) employees. (p. 99. 1986. Rollo) Eliza Saile. 78909 June 30. 1985. 1989 WHEREFORE.58. No. we find her government.01). 1986. Rollo) MEDIALDEA. Augusto S.[if !supportFootnotes][30][endif] which fact Puericulture Center. Levie Laquio. Dolores Montederamos to have been SIX (36) employees of the said hospital as appearing in the illegally dismissed and awarding them separation pay and attached Annex "F" worksheets and/or whatever action limited backwages is AFFIRMED. petitioner.R. as she only had three out of the minimum 10 required Petitioner is a semi-government hospital. 1986. Santander and Montederamos are sustained. 1974. Hon. awarding salary differentials and emergency which reads: cost of living allowances (ECOLAS) to employees of WHEREFORE. employees/workers the prevailing statutory minimum wage respondents. Aside from salary and living allowances. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND Thenceforth. dated from May 23. President. Rollo). deficiency on wage and covering the period from March 31. 1986. 1986 order is hereby petitioner. modifying the said Order in September 24. WHEREFORE. Sanchez. 2000 to September 30. affirming with modification the Order of that deficiency wages and ECOLAs should be computed only respondent Regional Director of Labor. termination just and legal. 1986. for underpayment of their salaries and computed from the time of dismissal up to September 19. Thus. 1986. the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. On May 23. which was docketed as ROX Case No. and the Order denying petitioner's motion for MODIFIED in that the deficiency wages and ECOLAs should . the Regional Director directed two of his to petitioner. 1986. Region X. premises considered. respondent Maternity MATERNITY CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL. Palacio. averaging 130 per petitioner cannot be compelled to retain her services as she month.: Petitioner appealed from this Order to the Minister of Labor This is a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of the and Employment. ten (10) employees of the petitioner Petitioner questions the amount of separation pay awarded to employed in different capacities/positions filed a complaint respondents contending that assuming respondents were with the Office of the Regional Director of Labor and illegally dismissed. DORADO. Based on this inspection report and recommendation. according On June 16. 1987.R. J. the Consequently. on the ground of grave who. 67691 finding respondents Teresita SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SIX & 01/100 (P654. Not being qualified to take the holdover President. the dispositive portion of which reads: G. the award of limited backwages IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. representing SO ORDERED. managed by the educational units to be admitted to take the LET pursuant to Board of Directors of the Cagayan de Oro Women's Club and Section 15 of RA 7836. the awards of separation pay and limited Regional Director issued an Order dated August 4. directing the payment of P723. As regards respondent equitable under the premises. thru this Office within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. headed by Mrs. Hence. backwages in her favor are DELETED. The hospital derives its finances from the examination to become a duly licensed professional teacher. amount of SIX HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND 2003 in CA-G. ecola as verified and confirmed per review of the respondent 2000 as ruled by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by both the payrolls and interviews with the complainant workers and all NLRC and CA is in order. 1986. the dispositive portion of August 4. ECOLAS. they are only entitled to an amount Employment. Marigen Calibod. that Antera Dorado. Elaine Marie representing underpayment of wages and ecola to the THIRTY Santander and Ma. 2000. complainants the total amount indicated opposite each name.

in the exercise of his visitorial and after due notice and hearing. hours ART. clearly within the ambit recomputation specifying the amounts due each the of the labor arbiter's authority under Article 217 of the Code. . Prior to the promulgation of E. The primary issue here is whether or not the Regional Director xxx xxx xxx had jurisdiction over the case and if so. violations or in aid in the enforcement of this Title and of any provided there still exists an employer-employee relationship.O. issued on complaint. March 27. cost of living allowance and other monetary and duly authorized representatives. from the arbitration system to the enforcement system. The complaint in the present case was filed on May follows: 23. given enforcement powers.O. 146 SCRA 50) that the "Regional reconsideration which was denied by the Secretary of Labor in Director was not empowered to share in the original and his Order dated May 13. L-16883. et al. (G. and to issue writs of execution to the . becomes relevant after the issue on (d) Violations of labor standard laws.R. and the right to copy 1987). (p. compliance with the labor enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code. 1961. If the inspection results in a finding that the employer has appropriate authority for the enforcement of their order. in We believe. Article 127 of the Code is hereby amended to read as unclear. vs. exclusive jurisdiction conferred on Labor Arbiters by Article The instant petition questions the all-embracing applicability 217. the petitioner filed a motion for 88. it is necessary to enumerate a series of rules Regional Director of Labor. Labor The Regional Director exercised visitorial rights only under standards refer to the minimum requirements prescribed by then Article 127 of the Code as follows: existing laws. Wage Order or regulation issued pursuant to this Code. Art. arising from his underpayment of wages. 1 Under the present rules. and is therefore empowered to adjudicate money claims. the course of inspection. safety. and decide the following cases involving all workers whether based on Article 217. dated September 16. Rollo). for lack of merit (p. . overtime compensation. G. 442. 216. separation visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128 of the pay. involving non-payment or of any award that should be forthcoming. p. rules. Visitorial Powers.. No. 1986. as authority for raising the additional issue of shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings. . Rollo) Metals Inc. and (b) those who were no longer in the service of December 16. Sr. 111 was not yet in effect. However. and health to the labor inspectorate. Petitioner likewise maintains that the Order of the respondent To clarify matters. (relying on the case of a). which transferred labor standards cases the hospital at the time the complaints were filed. then the regional director xxx xxx xxx . 850. et al. as amended by E. has standards provisions of this Code based on the findings of no authority to award money claims. 111. Regional Directors already had enforcement powers over complaints. provided in part: 1986. petitioner further questions the were an exclusive function of labor arbiters. Jurisdiction of the Commission.R. The Minister of Labor. The matter of whether or not the decision states employee-employer relations. however. — The Commission 1 SCRA 860. decided by the Labor Arbiters and compulsory arbitrators. 128-b (Emphasis supplied) of the Labor Code. xxx xxx xxx This is a labor standards case. 1986. complainants under each of the applicable Presidential The Ong case relied on the ruling laid down in Zambales Base Decrees. shall have access to employers' standards (Section 7. in addition to visitorial powers. No. the Regional Director's authority over money claims was SEC.R. labor standards cases its "Rejoinder to Comment". effective under P. that it covers not only the hospital employees who signed the 111. Parel. thus: representatives shall have the power to order and administer. the Regional Director. as amended. but not restricted. and the Art. 1987. as affirmed with modifications by and provisions of law on the disposition of labor standards respondent Secretary of Labor. Article 127. . as amended by PD 570- and ECOLAs to private respondents. 1987.O. In Prior to the promulgation of PD 850. 52. maternity leave and other money claims arising from Labor Code. Rule I. The must order the necessary rectifications. the extent of coverage (c) All money claims of workers. except claims for workmen's clearly and distinctly statement of facts as well as the law upon compensation." of the award involving salary differentials and ECOLAS. . xxx xxx xxx vs. 111 on December 24. No. but also those (a) who are not signatories to the money claims. state the facts and the law on which the award was based. this does not case is remanded to the Regional Director. both visitorial and enforcement power over labor standards condition or matter which may be necessary to determine cases. which it is based. 1975. 1983 to May 23. that even in the absence of E. 127. — The Secretary of Labor or his of work. Regional Directors were employer concerned. No. 1986. for include adjudication of money claims. does not clearly and distinctly cases. . 127. — prevailing view was that stated in the case of Antonio Ong. 73184- On October 24. properly falling within labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. . and the findings of the regional office is not contested by the With the promulgation of PD 850. 1986 when E. 76710. and regulations relating to wages. O. No. Region X. including occupational.. 43 Rollo). welfare benefits. work is being undertaken therein. No. including. paragraph 3 of the Labor Code. agricultural or non-agricultural. Baltazar. G. which read in part: Encarnacion vs. No. 10. a Regional Director exercises therefrom. to question any employee and investigate any fact. jurisdiction has been resolved. dated December (b) The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized 21. Henry M. violated certain labor standard laws. . November 26. Rules on the Disposition of Labor records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever Standards Cases in the Regional Office. Visitorial and enforcement powers. alleging that the original and exclusive jurisdiction The Labor Arbiters shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear over money claims is properly lodged in the Labor Arbiter. and is governed by Art. Nos. social security and medicare benefits. under Article 216 authority of the Regional Director to award salary differentials of the then Labor Code (PD No. 40.only be computed from May 23.D.

00 or over 40% of the equity of the guidance of all concerned. In addition. Article 216 underwent a series of amendments (Emphasis supplied) (aside from being re-numbered as Article 217) and with it a Under the then Labor Code therefore (PD 442 as amended by corresponding change in the jurisdiction of. not litigate. The Regional Director. lost jurisdiction over labor employer. 7 (undated) was likewise 3. The following cases are under the exclusive original arbitration. with one major exception: 1) labor standard cases where employer-employee relations no the Labor Arbiter exercised full and untrammelled authority in longer exist. became immediately assignable to the xxx xxx xxx Arbitration Branch for joint conciliation and compulsory 2. scope of. 1976. It became necessary to jurisdiction over unresolved issues in collective bargaining. 2 On April 23. MOLE Policy Instructions No. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. a complaining employee who was denied maternity or service incentive leave. PD 1391 merged conciliation and xxx xxx xxx compulsory arbitration functions in the person of the Labor 6. the Labor Arbiters: adjudicatory units: The Regional Director. The whole enforcement whether agricultural or non-agricultural: machinery of the Department of Labor exists to insure its xxx xxx xxx expeditious delivery to him free of charge. separation pay and other his rights and benefits due him under labor standards law need money claims arising from employer-employee relations. social security enforcement power. the MOLE Policy Instructions No. (It also removed his Instructions No. and those cases arising from employer-employee relations into one document. the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction jurisdiction of the Conciliation Section of the Regional Office: even over termination and labor-standards cases that may be a) Labor standards cases where employer-employee relations assigned to them for compulsory arbitration by the Director of no longer exist. whichever is lower. "Conciliable cases" which were thus a) Labor standards cases arising from violations of labor previously under the jurisdiction of the defunct Conciliation standard laws discovered in the course of inspection or Section of the Regional Office for purposes of conciliation or complaints where employer-employee relations still exist. and the seemingly overlapping functions as a result of PD 1391. 37 was issued on October 7. and supervision PD 570-a. 1391 and system. labor standards cases have been taken from ARBITERS the arbitration system and placed under the enforcement Pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. PD 1367 (5-1-78) — gave Labor Arbiters exclusive Labor Relations and the Labor Arbiter. (Article 228. b) the amount involved guidelines are hereby established for the information and exceeds P100. follows: The purpose is clear: to assure the worker the rights and Art. the standards cases) as follows: Labor Arbiter entertained cases certified to him. overtime or premium compensation. on the other hand. first and second paragraphs of which provide as follows: 1978. The worker need not litigate to get hear and decide the following cases involving all workers. was still in the employ of the firm. and provides in part (on labor jurisdiction over moral or other damages) In other words. The following cases are certifiable to the Labor Arbiters: Arbiter.000. POLICY INSTRUCTIONS NO. PD 1391 (5-29-78) — all regional units of the National SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION OVER Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) were integrated into the LABOR CASES Regional Offices Proper of the Ministry of Labor. and provided in part: POLICY INSTRUCTIONS NO. namely: Force and Field Services Division. 37 TO: All Regional Directors TO: All Concerned SUBJECT: LABOR STANDARDS CASES SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO LABOR Under PD 850. the enforcement power of the Regional Director. enunciating the rationale for. MOLE Policy duly indorsed by the Regional Directors. of the Ministry of Labor. 22. Under the foregoing. except where a) questions of law are involved as to insure speedy disposition of labor cases. benefits due to him under labor standards laws without having — (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have exclusive jurisdiction to to go through arbitration. 216.Labor Arbiters. clarify and consolidate all governing provisions on jurisdiction etc. he of this Code. The procedure governing the disposition of cases at a) Cases not settled by the Conciliation Section of the Regional the Arbitration Branch paralleled those in the Special Task Office. . c) the case requires evidentiary standards cases. 7 POLICY INSTRUCTIONS NO. what legally belongs to him. (Emphasis (3) All money claims of workers involving non-payment or supplied) underpayment of wages. 6 1978 Labor Code. matters not disclosed or verified in the normal course of provided in part: inspection. the disposition of the case. by virtue of his except claims for employee's compensation. Article 216 of the Code is hereby amended to read as relationship. particularly in the substantive xxx xxx xxx aspect. or d) there is no more employer-employee SEC. provided of course. 3 MOLE Policy Instructions No.) TO: All Concerned 2. amicable settlement. The following cases are under the exclusive original the Arbitration Branch to the Director of the Regional Office jurisdiction of the Regional Director. 37 — Because of the subsequently issued. assured "expeditious delivery to him of and medicare benefits and as otherwise provided in Article 127 his rights and benefits free of charge". the Bureau of 1. as then amended by PD 850. xxx xxx xxx After PD 850.. the following determined by the Regional Director. his decisions and orders subject to review only on (Emphasis supplied) appeal to the NLRC. Article 216. the Regional Office. as further amended by PD 850). 6 was issued. there were three over. effectively xxx xxx xxx transferring direct administrative control and supervision over 1.

130. shall be assigned by the jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) working days Regional Director to the Labor Arbiter for conciliation and after submission of the case by the parties for decision. 111 was issued on December 24. the money claims unresolved issues in collective bargaining and money claims. (b) cases involving deadlock in collective bargaining. BP 130 (8-21-8l) — strengthened voluntary arbitration. Thus. to the Labor Arbiters where: 3. and therein shall be resolved by him including those which are 5. Article 217 of the Labor Code as amended Cases which are conciliable per se i. (a) labor standards by P. Batas Pambansa Blg. 1980. Disposition of Cases. and (d) overseas employment cases. provisions were not discovered in the course of normal Despite the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters inspection. The discovered in the course of normal inspection. 1986 of the Zambales Base Metals case. Cases involving violation of labor standards laws where 2. findings of labor regulation officers or industrial safety after due notice and hearing. dated August 4. vs.. cases where employer-employee relationship no longer exists.82) — original and exclusive jurisdiction over underpayment of wages to workers still in its employ. BP 227(6-1. EO 111 authorizes a Regional in the normal course of inspection. the provisions of MOLE Policy Instructions over money claims. In other words. practice cases. Those that workers may file involving wages. On the other hand. Unfair labor practice cases. the xxx xxx xxx employer disputed the adequacy of the evidentiary foundation (Emphasis supplied) (employees' affidavits) of the findings of the labor standards 4. In the present case. Inc. except — (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have the original and exclusive those involving overseas seamen. and to issue writs of execution to the findings of the labor regulation officer and raises issues which appropriate authority for the enforcement of their order. Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have On August 4. connected with the company.D. compliance with the labor engineers made in the course of inspection. Labor Standards Cases. 1. it pleaded for time to raise funds to satisfy its obligation. when the order was issued. except cannot be resolved without considering evidentiary matters in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. or payment or underpayment of wages. the whole case. When a case is assigned to a Labor Arbiter. except in cases where the employer contests the the course of inspection. are inapplicable. provided an decree also returned the Labor Arbiters as part of the NLRC. effective May 1. medicare and maternity 3. overtime compensation. however. and Batas Pambansa Blg. All money claims of workers. and remained (Assignment of Cases to Labor Arbiters) giving Regional empowered to adjudicate uncontested money claims. petitioner admitted the charge of 6. except effective June 1. However. except claims for employees' for their proper disposition. on the basis Barely less than a month after the promulgation on November of his visitorial and enforcement powers under Article 128 26. after due notice and 4 read as follows: hearing.D. employer-employee relationship still exists. social security. in fact. and to issue writs standards provisions of this Code based on the findings of of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement labor regulation officers or industrial safety engineers made in of their orders. The Minister (b) THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 217 OF THIS CODE of Labor (supra) cases. Directors adjudicatory powers over uncontested money claims 5. inter alia.employee relationship still exists shall be assigned and other terms and conditions of employment. non-agricultural: 2. (Distribution of Jurisdiction Over Labor Cases) and 37 nonetheless retained his enforcement power. effective August 21. 1981. 217. in the Ong case. questions involving legality of strikes and lock-outs. Executive Order (formerly Article 127) of the present Labor Code. compliance with the labor standards provisions of this (b) The Minister of Labor or his duly authorized Code AND OTHER LABOR LEGISLATION based on the representatives shall have the power to order and administer. compensation. (Emphasis supplied) Director to order compliance by an employer with labor . including those based on non- a) intricate questions of law are involved. 1986. whether agricultural or section of the Regional Office. outs. all issues raised 4. 1986. a Regional Director is precluded from TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING AND IN adjudicating money claims on the ground that this is an CASES WHERE THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER- exclusive function of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of EMPLOYEE STILL EXISTS. Conciliable Cases. as amended. Cases involving household services. the Minister of Labor and the present Code. Parel 128(b) of the Labor Code. (c) unfair labor ART. 1982. 227. the arbitration without coursing them through the conciliation following cases involving all workers.1. Cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this Code. Article 128(b) the power to order and administer. hours of work employer. provides: those falling under P.5 amending Article contended that based on the rulings in the Ong vs. which arose from alleged violations of labor standards which includes moral or other damages. 823. It is No. PD 1691(5-1-80) — original and exclusive jurisdiction over inspectors while in the Zambales case. the Regional Director Nos.e. b) evidentiary matters not disclosed or verified in the normal separation pay and other benefits provided by law or course of inspection by labor regulations officers are required appropriate agreement. 1691. There The present petition questions the authority of the Regional was thus no contest against the findings of the labor inspectors. 6. shall be assigned to The Ong and Zambales cases involved workers who were still and resolved by him. benefits. to read as follows: (supra) and the Zambales Base Metals. regulations officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved (Emphasis supplied) without considering evidentiary matters that are not verifiable As seen from the foregoing. originally cognizable by the Regional Director to avoid including questions involving the legality of strikes and lock- multiplicity of proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) and not merely issues involved therein. operating as Arbitration Branch thereof. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. Director to issue the Order. 1986.

. Sanchez: provisions of pars. It would be highly derogatory to the rights of the workers. L. September 16. as and ECOLAs on September 24. enforcement adjudication authority of the Regional Director said agreement shall be reduced in writing and signed by the over uncontested money claims in cases where an employer. as Section 8. long-winded arbitration and litigation. " The provisions of Article 217 of this Code to the course the employer does not contest the findings made. Martinez. al.. above-cited. Section 2. not defeat. . Judge A. Franklin M. which indicate the intention to empower the Regional Director It is Our considered opinion however. We see no . .P. this (c) Restitutions in excess of the aforementioned amount shall would be not only render the enforcement power of the be effected at the Regional Office or at the worksite subject to Minister of Labor and Employment nugatory. and/or compliance by.R.O. When the field inspection does not 33 dated August 4. — All such complaints shall The Regional Director correctly applied the award with respect immediately be forwarded to the Regional Director who shall to those employees who signed the complaint. et al. 7 cases where an employer-employee relationship still exists. 6 authorized representative. to assure the workers the rights and benefits due to him Aguas. 6 and 37 to empower wracking. Compromise agreement.00. .P. were not signatories to the complaint is that the visitorial and Section 3. 7 and 37. Garcia vs. Sections 2 and 3 of Rule II on "Money Claims Arising Director erred in extending the award to all hospital from Complaint Routine Inspection". the Regional Directors to resolve uncontested money claims in Note further the second paragraph of Policy Instructions No. in Article 128(b). claims for payment of monetary benefits its exercise is the observance of. considered in the nature of a curative statute with retrospective This view is in consonance with the present "Rules on the application. . the Regional Director shall Susi. 111. that the inclusion of the to award money claims in excess of P100. merely confirms/reiterates the arrive at an agreement as to the whole or part of the dispute. No. 1986. (b) and (c). parties in the presence of the Regional Director or his duly employee relationship still exists. 7 to amounts not exceeding members/employees should benefit therefrom. No.00 has been dispensed with. it is also clear that the limitation embodied in MOLE labor legislation by such establishment. 59711-12. 33. 7 issued by the Secretary of Labor. the workers would not litigate to get what legally belongs to reason to detract from this rudimentary rule in administrative him. No. Drilon on G. . without being inconvenienced by (Article 128-b) by said E.. al. Complaints where no employer-employee enforcement powers given to the Secretary of Labor is relevant relationship actually exists. p. Pedrito de produce the desired results. May 29. et al.O. Rights must be asserted be upheld on the basis of Article 128(b) as amended by E. 111 was issued on December 24. et. G. it is clear that it months after the promulgation of the Secretary of Labor's has always been the intention of our labor authorities to decision upholding private respondents' salary differentials provide our workers immediate access (when still feasible.O. . perforce. 1987. not over the individual relationship no longer exists by reason of the fact that it has members/employees. . to be truly meaningful and rewarding interpretation to be in accord with the legislative intent. . . et. . law. without having to go through 429: arbitration. 1985.00). summon the parties for summary investigation to expedite the The justification for the award to this group of employees who disposition of the case. 1986 or three (3) MOLE Policy Instructions Nos. (Supra). as well as those refer the case to the appropriate unit in the Regional Office for who did not sign the complaint. the entire Policy Instructions No. but were still connected with assignment to a Labor Standards and Welfare Officer (LSWO) the hospital at the time the complaint was filed (See Order." (Progressive Workers' Union. and benefits received with the least inconvenience. et al. M. arbiters. Labor laws No. 90 SCRA 331).000. vs. p. Complaint inspection. F. 150 SCRA under labor standard laws. thus: if after categorically finding the respondent hospital guilty of xxx xxx xxx underpayment of wages and ECOLAs. in case of an award resulting from a violation of Likewise. provided of phrase. the . . As held in Progressive Workers' Union. 6. . . . .R. based contrary notwithstanding and in cases where the relationship on the provisions of Section 8 thereof: of employer-employee still exists" . we limit the award to (b) Plant-level restitutions may be effected for money claims only those who signed the complaint to the exclusion of the not exceeding Fifty Thousand (P50. particularly when later events have proved said Social justice legislation. ensuring delivery . (Emphasis supplied) Necessarily. provide as follows: employees. 1979. . . . . Indeed. majority of the workers who are similarly situated. but financially burdensome in the long run. We answer in the affirmative. Rollo). enunciated in Policy Instructions Nos. same Rules. because what is sought to be achieved by already been severed.standards provisions of the Labor Code and other legislation. The interpretation by officers of laws which are entrusted to so that their administration is entitled to great respect. Disposition of Labor Standard Cases in the Regional Offices " Aguas. We now come to the question of whether or not the Regional Thus. such fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the labor firm/establishment with the labor standards regulations.. — Should the parties amended. to our workers. As aptly stated P100. and exercisable over establishments. vs. free of charge. 1986 of the Regional Director. 1986. Section 7 on "Restitution". The amendment of the where an employer-employee relationship still exists) to their visitorial and enforcement powers of the Regional Director rights and benefits. 111 reflects the intention arbitration/litigation processes that prove to be not only nerve..47629.000. . Viewed in the light of PD 850 and read in coordination with E.000. May 28. indicating that the transfer of labor standards cases from the This intention must be given weight and entitled to great arbitration system to the enforcement system is respect. Hon. — Where employer-employee to. must not be hampered in its application by The proceedings before the Regional Director must. this executive order "to be are meant to promote. in view of the following by then Minister of Labor Augusto S. dated December 24. social justice. for field inspection. . F. but would be the the prior approval of the Regional Director.

and to delete the disciplinary action from 10. Bienvinodo T. Cruz. Solon R.1 containing the following disposition: WHEREFORE.R. viz: that the same contains a brief statement of the (a) facts of the SECTION 6. 9 Fortunato Gupit. petitioner. there is no legal justification for the award in favor GRANTED as regards those employees no longer employed of those employees who were no longer connected with the at that time. this petition should be dismissed. INC. On various occasions. based. Rollo) but shall be a thorough inquiry into and verification of the ACCORDINGLY. . Their duties and responsibilities. 38-39. not applicable where petitioner. among others. . Padilla. Rene B. Ungos.. No. (e) specific remedy granted (amount allegations or violations raised by the complainants/workers awarded). Cortes. Rollo). individual respondents. Rollo) 3 G. 6 Adela Peralta GILBERT ANTONIO. . Jamoralin. hence. are: the employee seeking to be paid underpayment of wages is Prepares meal orders and checklists. p. ALBERTO SANTOS. Passenger Services Department of power of the Regional Director. which respondents resented. Rule Contrary to the pretensions of the respondent hospital.: 13 The instant petition for certiorari seeks to set aside the decision of The National Labor Relations Commission 14 Felix Monleon (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. made a We invite attention to the Minister of Labor's ruling thereon. promulgated on 15 December 11. and THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. viz: Fernan. 8 Mauricio Nagales respondents. 40. binning. Griño-Aquino and 2 Jean (Joan) Venzon (See Order. C. Rollo) complainants' service records. . His claim is purely a equipment in accordance with the requirements of the type of money claim that has to be the subject of arbitration service for each flight. Narvasa. . (d) conclusions complaint inspection shall not be limited to the specific and the reasons therefor. . Jr. HOUDIEL MAGADIA. the respondent hospital assails the order under appeal discriminate but also deprive them of legislated benefits. Paras. their salary.. jr. Jr. The deductions represented losses of inventoried 1986 of the Regional Director in that it does not clearly and items charged to them for mishandling of company properties distinctly state the facts and the law on which the award is . jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. as null and void because it does not clearly and distinctly . (pp. JJ. and inventorying of proceedings and therefore within the original and exclusive Commissary supplies and equipment. Such that on August 21. respondent PAL is directed to pay complainants 18 Edgar Cataluna. 1993 4 Rosario Paclijan PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. as follows: Reynaldo Abad. Rollo) is 1. Individual respondents are all Port Stewards of Catering not applicable as said article is in aid of the enforcement Sub-Department. but However.. (p. Gorospe. 1 Gancayco. .. in view of the foregoing consideration. Feliciano.J. (Emphasis supplied) the Hospital at the time of the filing of the complaint. and Paulino D. . Garcia. 1986. we II of the "Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards cases in have carefully reviewed the order on appeal and we found the Regional Offices" (supra) presently enforced. Gutierrez. Raymond Manija ( p. skiing. state the facts and the law on which the awards were based. for 10 Consesa Bautista petitioner. 6.pinnacle of injustice considering that it would not only Finally. 5 vs. several deductions were made from Petitioner has likewise questioned the order dated August 4. REGINO DURAN. 33. 12 Teresita Agcopra REGALADO.2 The enforcement power of the Regional Director cannot These material facts recited in the basic petition are virtually legally be upheld in cases of separated employees. Guerzon for private respondents. (b) issues involved. hospital at the time the complaint was filed. 11 Adolpho M. — A case. 2. Bidin. setting up standard already separated from the service. having resigned SO ORDERED. concur. 17 declaring the suspension of complainants to be illegal and consequently. formal notice regarding the deductions to petitioner thru Mr. the 16 Teresita Salvador Decision appealed from is set aside and another one entered. 77875 February 4. as it is compliance by employer with existing labor standards and hereby DISMISSED. and their salaries corresponding to the respective period(s) of their 19 suspension. JR. Coverage of complaint inspection. Manager for Catering. Article undisputed and we reproduce the same hereunder: 129 of the Labor Code. as regards all persons still employed in shall cover all workers similarly situated. 54. This view is further bolstered by the provisions of Sec. cited by petitioner (p. Regalado. (c) applicable laws. J. PHILIPPINE 7 AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.. 1984. Jr. represented by the union. 4-1206-85. therefrom in 1984..7.

Two (2) copies of the grievance form properly price. the grievance 10. In like manner. . such that his Citing Section 1. 1985 to argues that respondent employees have the obligation. Gilbert Antonio did not unlawfully excluded petitioner from the exercise of a right to conduct ramp inventory on December 10. for them to explain on (sic) why no grievance form. Abad resolved the grievance by denying Sec. loss may be cost price 1/10 selling the parties. Article IV of the CBA. 1985. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied. he officer or office based his or its determination. did not conduct ramp specifically enjoins it to perform as a duty or has otherwise inventory on December 7. (hereinafter. Labor Arbiter inventory of bonded goods and merchandise being done by Ceferina J. . and shall not be eligible for further appeal. Thereafter. . . The said grievance resolution of his grievance. Abad. . . which it is entitled. Abad's return on December 7. 1985 wrote by an inter-office division head shall answer the grievance within five (5) days memorandum addressed to the grievants. he shall record the amount due to mishandling of company property which grievance on the grievance form heretofore agreed upon by resulted to losses. justifiable grievance shall take the matter up with his shop he rationalized: steward. on March 17. . Article IV of the PAL-PALEA Collective Bargaining 8. a complaint for illegal suspension was filed before the grievance were the illegal/questionable salary deductions and Arbitration Branch of the Commission. the individual respondents refused to conduct neglected the performance of an act which the law inventory works. and as for the salary deductions for losses. within the five (5)-day regl(e)mentary period. However. who decision setting aside the labor arbiter's order of dismissal. every employee is duty bound to present the of infractions committed. If the division head fails to act conducting ramp inventory. . on January 3. the 4. The directive was complied with . . it 5. . . Upon Mr.5 1984. rather. 1986. . . Sec. * matter before management and give the latter an opportunity 12. Mr. the shop steward wrote a letter on December 5. petitioner had only five days to resolve the grievance as Evidently basic and firmly settled is the rule that judicial provided for in the CBA. Going over the explanation. The dates.3. Regino Duran and Houdiel Magadia did not conduct the same The instant case hinges on the interpretation of Section 2. If the shop steward feels there is justification for 1. signing and dating same. Abad. an employee should not preempt the in abeyance the execution of said penalty. .4 It has on December 12. At the grievance meeting which was attended by some union Agreement. 1984. Reynaldo Abad. Petitioner stood pat (o)n the validity of the suspensions. 1985 was shortened by one month and was lifted on management has. IV. Petitioner submits that since the grievance machinery was 11. or at least. at the time was on vacation leave. per provision of the PAL-PALEA CBA. just as April 5. . however. It was only proper that employees are charged for the taking the matter up with the Company. on December 10 and 12. . private March 5. 1984 to to respondent commission which rendered the aforequoted the office of Mr. PALEA to impose whatever corrective measure is possible. he has the duty to observe was forthwith denied but the penalty of suspension with the status quo.6 respect to respondent Ramos was modified. evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the labor 6. 1984. As there was no action taken on said representation. to settle all labor disputes through friendly . holding normal circumstances. . . accepted. Bargaining Agreement between petitioner and the union. petitioner further suspension which was originally from January 15. Alberto Santos. to wit: representatives. . Thus. and returning one disciplinary action should be taken against them for not copy to the shop steward. Art. decision made. . said grievance as believed by them review by this Court in labor cases does not go so far as to (private respondents) was deemed resolved in their favor. who was still on leave at the time. 10 and 12. Under filed another grievance asking for lifting of. 1984 reimbursement of the salaries of individual respondents during pursuant to the grievance machinery Step 1 of the Collective the period of their suspension. individual from the date of presentation by inserting his decision on the respondents herein. Mr. 2. whether or not public respondent NLRC acted with grave that inasmuch as no reply was made to their grievance which abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in "was duly received by your secretary" and considering that rendering the aforementioned decision. Jr. but is limited immediately informed the grievants and scheduled a meeting to issues of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. a penalty of suspension ranging from 7 thresh out whatever problems may arise in the course of their days to 30 days were (sic) imposed depending on the number relationship. (Emphasis ours. 2 — Processing of Grievances the petition of individual respondents and adopted the position xxx xxx xxx that inventory of bonded goods is part of their duty as catering STEP 1 — Any employee who believes that he has a service personnel. CBA). After the penalty of suspension was meted down.3 their duty. 1984 addressed The Court is accordingly called upon to resolve the issue of to the office of Mr. . . Diosana. the grievants (individual respondents) thru interposed the present petition. ruled in favor of catering service personnel which they believed should not be petitioner by dismissing the complaint. Since the grievance step 1 was not decided and no action grievance shall be considered settled on the basis of the was done by your office within 5 days from November 21. The topics which the union wanted to be discussed in the said Hence. Abad found the same established for both labor and management as a vehicle to unsatisfactory. Manager for Catering. filled. . If the conducting ramp inventory was put forth as: division head's decision is not appealed to Step II. The union. 13. not been shown that respondent NLRC has unlawfully 7. Subsequently.) the grievance is deemed resolved in PALEA's favor. As there was no ramp inventory conducted on the mentioned discussed by the shop steward with the division head. The said grievance was submitted on November 21. Private respondents appealed the decision of the labor arbiter 4. . The reason for not must be resolved in favor of the aggrieved party. and signed shall then be presented to and 9. Mr. made a demand for the respondents filed a formal grievance on November 4.

Jr. . the this should be allowed. for it is hard to believe that everything under Abad's They have woven together the world by transmitting authority would have to stand still during his absence from ideas and knowledge from country to country. 8042. . but because of the one-sided relation between already stepped into the controversy. 20071 least have assigned an officer-in-charge to look into the For Antonio Serrano (petitioner).e. respondent National Labor Relations Commission is otherwise "the grievance must be resolved in favor of the AFFIRMED. That could not have been the intendment of the privileges in life should have more privileges in law. 11 pertinent provision of the CBA. for it must be Sec. the grievance and possibly make his recommendation to Mr. 2009 On this score. . private respondents should not be faulted for laboring classes. Reynaldo Abad had to act on the grievance of complainants Gallant MARITIME SERVICES.J. left to attend to Abad's duties. Contrary to petitioner's submission. petitioner failed to act on it. management — with all its power and influence — in and hide under the cloak of its officers being "on leave" to negotiating for the advancement of his interests and the avoid being caught by the 5-day deadline under the CBA. C.R. days begins to run. DECISION complainants. Nocon and Campos. and within five days from 21 November 1984. Republic Abad.15 the grievance of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon employees is not a matter which requires the personal act of Global Forum on Migration and Development Mr. the complaints of the workers in particular. the latter closed the door to this possibility by not Petitioner has sorely missed the point. division head vs. Based on the facts heretofore narrated. Respondents. Section 2 is not self-executing. only recently have we product of inadvertence on the part of PAL management.. It is of no moment that Mr. Thus. provided health care. secretary during his absence. that division head Reynaldo Abad was then "on leave" when Narvasa. 14 policies can magnify this effect. INC. but begun to understand not only how much international certainly. it is to be expected that someone has to be provided the dynamic human link between cultures.negotiations. 1984.9 The constitutional mandate for the If the Court were to follow petitioner's line of reasoning. J. Abad's failure to act i. the workingmen will suffer great law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the injustice for they will necessarily be at the mercy of their working class on the humane justification that those with less employer. 7 Before the prescriptive period of five decided to turn an ear to their plaints. not only because the Constitution imposes believing that the effects of the CBA in their favor had such sympathy. contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term. Reynaldo Abad.A.. respondent NLRC aptly ruled: ANTONIO M.2 to wit: into the grievance upon returning to work. If defense of his rights.: CBA had already set in. This. Therefore. is of no equipped schools and planted the seeds of businesses. however. the workers shall be income for their daily subsistence and survival. the instant aforequoted. As respondent NLRC has pointed out. 167614 March 24. it promotion of labor is as explicit as it is demanding. SERRANO. valid or authorized salary deductions and who rely so much on their meager cause as defined by law or contract. cannot be blamed if they did not For decades. 10. entire families and communities out of poverty.. . much less the benevolent It is clear that the grievance was filed with Mr.16 but it is clearly too much of an injustice if the Mr. Much as the grievance does not trigger the tolling of the prescriptive the latter were willing to discuss their grievance with their period.8 employer. Petitioner could at Brussels. Feliciano. It salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment was only after a formal grievance was filed and after Mr. Money Claims.13 This knowledge.. should not prevent the application of the CBA. concur. believing in good faith that the effect of the AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. two concurrent requirements must be met. The would be easy for management to delay the resolution of purpose is to place the workingman on an equal plane with labor problems.x x x In case of termination of remembered that the grievants are workingmen who suffered overseas employment without just. In this regard. . INC. 1984 that petitioner narrowly interpreted. it is entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee noteworthy that when these employees first presented their with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum. when MARLOW NAVIGATION CO. Of course. They have office. the time the grievance was presented. Thus. the mere filing of employees be made to bear the dire effects thereof. assigning someone else to look into the matter during Abad's It is a fact that the sympathy of the Court is on the side of the absence. Abad and thus could not be delegated. Section 2 of the CBA should not be Abad returned to work on December 7.10 Under the policy of social justice. last clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10. a Filipino seafarer.. Abad immediately looked Act (R. the toil of solitary migrants has helped lift conduct ramp inventory for the days thereafter. Their respondent PAL argued that Reynaldo Abad was on leave at earnings have built houses. Yet. This judgment is immediately executory. complainants should not be made to suffer the migration impacts development. plus his complaint on August 21. the division head shall act on the grievance petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision of within five (5) days from the date of presentation thereof. presentment of the grievance and its discussion between on the matter may have been due to petitioner's the shop steward and the division head who in this case is inadvertence. moment. whichever is less. Petitioner.12 Under Section 2 of the CBA ACCORDINGLY." It is not disputed that the grievants knew SO ORDERED. failed to act within the reglementary period. Besides. Abad's policy underlying our labor laws. aggrieved party. but how smart public consequences.. July 10. labor and capital.) No. this may be a societies and economies. G. No. they filed their grievance which was received by Abad's secretary. however. Abad. JJ. To be sure. on the foregoing premises.

590. in representation of respondents that he would be made Philippine Currency. July 01/31. jointly and severally.. 01/31. 1998 (5 days) incl. 1998 total amount awarded to the aforesaid employee under 2. 01/31. 1998. 1999. the amount of FORTY and twenty-three (23) days.90 attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the June 01/30.00 exacerbates the hardships borne by them by unduly Oct. based on the rate of exchange Chief Officer by the end of April 1998. leaving an unexpired portion of nine (9) months prevailing at the time of payment. FIVE U. 1998) + Duration of contract 1. The respondents are likewise ordered to pay the but at the time of his repatriation on May 26. premises considered. he complainant [petitioner]. US$700.590.00). broken down as follows: Currency.00).8 unexpired portion of the aforesaid contract of Petitioner's employment contract was for a period of 12 employment. 01/31.73. August 01/31. the amount of EIGHT Respondents did not deliver on their promise to make THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY U. petitioner assails the December 8.0 hours per week fees. jointly and severally.590.590. but 2. in Philippine US$26. 1999.00. (respondents) under a 25. 01/28. 1998 clause). In addition. upon the assurance and the complainant [petitioner]. 1998 up to March 19.060. based on the rate of exchange contract. 1998 limiting their entitlement in case of illegal dismissal to 2. Ltd.00 days per month5 WHEREFORE.x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 2. 1998 All other claims are hereby DISMISSED.6 prevailing at the time of payment. at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of May 27/31. Leave pay payment.00 year of the unexpired term.00 US$ 26. entreating this Court to declare the subject clause --------------------------------------------------------------------- unconstitutional. 1998. ----------- Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services.00 their lump-sum salary either for the unexpired portion of Nov.442.000.12 representing the Petitioner filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a Complaint9 complainant’s claim for a salary differential. 1998 their employment contract "or for three months for every 2. 01/30. 2005 Resolution4 of the Court of 1.00 damages are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.400. 1998 workers (OFWs) to national development. representing the stay on as Second Officer and was repatriated to the complainant’s salary for three (3) months of the Philippines on May 26.00 per month declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal and awarding Vacation leave with pay him monetary benefits. DOLLARS (US$ 45. . in had served only two (2) months and seven (7) days of his Philippine Currency. 01/30. 1/19.7 Hence.382. deprives them of equal protection and 2. Inc.590. to wit: 7.00 this Decision. and Marlow Navigation Co. leave pay Decision3 and April 1. petitioner rendered declaring that the dismissal of the complainant was constrained to accept a downgraded employment (petitioner) by the respondents in the above-entitled case contract for the position of Second Officer with a was illegal and the respondents are hereby ordered to pay monthly salary of US$1. 1998. jointly and severally. 1999 (19 days) incl. judgment is hereby On March 19.1avvphi1 months or from March 19.7311 Hours of work as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's 48.590. 1999 By way of Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 2.00 denies them due process.5010 12 months Position --------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Officer ------------------------- Basic monthly salary TOTAL CLAIM US$1. Overtime The LA rendered a Decision dated July 15. whichever is less" (subject Dec.442.640. against respondents for constructive dismissal and for the respondents are hereby ordered to pay the payment of his money claims in the total amount of complainant. Feb.00 Rules of Court. the date of his departure. 1998 The claims of the complainant for moral and exemplary 2. petitioner Chief Officer. 1999 their contract.S.00 does not magnify the contributions of overseas Filipino Sept. petitioner refused to DOLLARS (US $8.00 OFWs' constitutional rights in that it impairs the terms of Jan.23 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Amount adjusted to chief mate's salary (POEA)-approved Contract of Employment with the following terms and conditions: (March 19/31. 2004 Mar. 1998 to April 1/30.590.S. which applied the subject clause. the complainant’s (petitioner's) claim for US$ 413.590. Petitioner claims that the last clause violates the 2.00 Appeals (CA).590.770.

200. the CA skirted the constitutional US$21. Inc. he is entitled to salary rate. WHEREFORE. In a Decision dated December 8. and for vacation leave pay. and 23 days of his employment contract or a total of 2003 which granted the petition for certiorari.21 The NLRC denied the motion. and 45. Section 10 of Republic Act No.00 On February 26. Supreme Court. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari23 with the CA.A.00 medical treatment and medication. constitutional question raised therein. at the same time.590.00 to US$1.400. + US$490.382."20 US$45.590. praying that the TOTAL constitutional question be resolved. in Philippine [of] Sec. the CA eventually gave due course to it.19 petition mindful of the extreme importance of the The NLRC corrected the LA's computation of the lump. unfairly and arbitrarily limits In a Decision dated June 15. which should be proven to have been Likewise not disputed is the salary differential of actually performed.00/month.50 Considering that the parties have filed their respective The other findings are affirmed.50 monetary award and. to wit: workers to three (3) months. the NLRC modified payment of the award for back wages of overseas the LA Decision. Three (3) months salary provided in his contract since under the contract they $1. in addition to the US$4. issue raised by petitioner.31 . 10% Attorney’s fees the court to allow partial execution of the undisputed 424.200.00. No. Salary differential withdraw his petition as he is already old and sickly.00.00/month. Applying the subject clause.400. as G. computed at the monthly rate of US$2. counsel for petitioner filed a motion.400 x 3 form part of his salary. urging 3. memoranda. which unreasonably.27 petitioner brings his cause to this Court on the US$8. consisting of petitioner's "[b]asic salary. 8042 "does not provide for the award the dismissal of petitioner was illegal is not disputed. the Court of currency.18 law. v. filed by petitioner. particularly. National Labor substance not theretofore determined by the Honorable Relations Commission17 that in case of illegal dismissal. 10 of Republic Act No.00.24 After initially dismissing the petition on a monthly rate of US$1. docketed US$4. jointly and severally.00 he intends to make use of the monetary award for his US$4.00/month + US$700. 8042.29 Required to comment. the CA affirmed petitioner contends that. the NLRC and the CA reiterating the constitutional challenge against the subject computed the lump-sum salary of petitioner at the clause. granting unto the migrant worker back wages equal to US$1.22 illegal dismissal. 2000. at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of Appeals gravely erred in law in excluding from payment the following: petitioner’s award the overtime pay and vacation pay 1.SO ORDERED.669. 2008.00. but remains disputed is only the computation of the lump- this time he questioned the constitutionality of the sum salary to be awarded to petitioner by reason of his subject clause.00 The unanimous finding of the LA.182.00 awarded to petitioner in all three fora. fixed overtime the unexpired portion of his contract of employment pay. however.590. the Court now takes up the full merit of the SO ORDERED. as three months out of the unexpired portion of nine months directed by this Court in its Resolution dated August 7.770.400. What Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Impugning the constitutionality of the subject clause.applying the subject decided the case in a way not in accord with applicable clause."14 II Respondents appealed15 to the National Labor Relations In the alternative that the Court of Appeals and the Labor Commission (NLRC) to question the finding of the LA Tribunals were merely applying their interpretation of that petitioner was illegally dismissed. However.13 (Emphasis supplied) His Motion for Reconsideration26 having been denied by In awarding petitioner a lump-sum salary of the CA.00 covering the period of technicality. petitioner wrote the Court to 2.23 more or a total of US$25. 8042. vacation leave pay = instead of limiting it to three (3) months US$2.00 the NLRC ruling on the reduction of the applicable awarded by the NLRC and the CA. the LA based his computation on the following grounds: salary period of three months only -.rather than the I entire unexpired portion of nine months and 23 days of The Court of Appeals and the labor tribunals have petitioner's employment contract . 151833.200. the LA applied the salary rate of decision of the Supreme Court involving similar issue of US$2. sum salary awarded to petitioner by reducing the On the first and second issues applicable salary rate from US$2. it is submitted that Petitioner also appealed16 to the NLRC on the sole issue the Court of Appeals gravely erred in law when it failed that the LA erred in not applying the ruling of the Court to discharge its judicial duty to decide questions of in Triple Integrated Services.30 US$4.25 equivalent to his salaries for the entire nine months and 23 days left of his employment contract. NLRC and CA that because R. Respondents are hereby ordered to pay Even without considering the constitutional limitations complainant. No.28 US$4. of overtime pay.00/compensation per month.590. the Decision dated 15 July 1999 is III MODIFIED. the constitutional issues OFWs are entitled to their salaries for the unexpired raised by the petitioner on the constitutionality of said portion of their contracts. 2004.23.245.R.

it does so only when these conditions obtain: well-entrenched and unequivocal jurisprudence on the (1) that there is an actual case or controversy involving a matter. petitioner argues that the decisions of the CA workers differ in terms of the nature of their employment. foreign employers will only be conflict of rights susceptible of judicial determination. that these faith and which fulfill their obligations are unnecessarily peculiarities make for a reasonable and valid basis for the penalized for the acts of the foreign employer. such as the their employees they have illegally dismissed. placement agencies that are in good workers. that the disparate treatment is not Rather.36 within Philippine territory."46 employment contract while local employers are liable for The Court's Ruling the full lump-sum salaries of their employees.44 Often. OFWs are contractual employees who can never acquire shoulder the payment of money claims in the event that regular employment status.A. No. The OSG enumerates dismissed OFWs. National Labor Relations Commission43 and Memorandum. the provisions thereof are deemed part of the the two groups. the local employers are When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of not limited to the amount of backwages they have to give judicial review of the acts of its co-equals. Thus. especially on II of the Constitution which guarantees the protection of the matter of money claims. declared illegal. 1995. the provision makes to the benefit of the migrant workers whose welfare the foreign employers better off than local employers because government seeks to promote. solidary liability of placement agencies for this "redounds being of OFWs. whether upon by the parties. 8042.32 It also impinges on the equal opportunity. placement agencies helps [assure] the government that foreign employers are liable for salaries covering a migrant workers are properly deployed and are employed maximum of only three months of the unexpired under decent and humane conditions. for it deprives him of the salaries Without a doubt. To protect differentiated treatment under the subject clause of the them and to promote their continued helpful contribution money claims of OFWs who are illegally dismissed. As The Court sustains petitioner on the first and second petitioner puts it: issues. while setting no limit to the same 8042 took effect on July 15. In terms of practical application.34 Article minimum terms of petitioner's employment. petitioner urges the Court to sort them out for the workers: first.47 limited to giving the illegally dismissed migrant workers (2) that the constitutional question is raised by a proper the maximum of three (3) months unpaid salaries party48 and at the earliest opportunity.38 otherwise the Court will dismiss the case or decide the Lastly.A. No.39 personally aggrieved that the labor tribunals and the CA . following Congress. R.49 and (3) that the notwithstanding the unexpired term of the contract that constitutional question is the very lis mota of the case. the subject clause sacrifices the well. No. their liability being solidary. OFWs perform their jobs for Petitioner further underscores that the insertion of the foreign employers. for it treats OFWs differently from local NLRC. and second. 8042 having preceded petitioner's reasonable as there is no substantial distinction between contract.45 (Emphasis supplied) Lastly. which was when he filed an appeal before the protection clause. the OSG emphasizes that OFWs and local Moreover.33 and that it defeats Section 18. petitioner claims that the subject clause violates same on some other ground. or against whom it is almost but to benefit local placement agencies. placement agencies. The survival of legitimate in cases involving the illegal dismissal of employees. respondents unconstitutional because it unduly impairs the freedom of contend that the constitutional issue should not be OFWs to negotiate for and stipulate in their overseas entertained.35 Moreover.A. over whom it is difficult for our courts subject clause into R. On the other hand. unlike local workers who are jurisdiction over the foreign employer is not acquired by or can become regular employees. for this was belatedly interposed by petitioner employment contracts a determinate employment period in his appeal before the CA. and the labor tribunals are not in line with existing such that their rights to monetary benefits must jurisprudence on the issue of money claims of illegally necessarily be treated differently.50 can be more than three (3) months. 37 nor Section 18. He marks the impossible to enforce judgment. 8042 serves no other purpose to acquire jurisdiction.40 Filipino workers (local workers) by putting a cap on the The Arguments of the Solicitor General amount of lump-sum salary to which OFWs are entitled in The Solicitor General (OSG)41 points out that as R.51 the due process clause. No. controversy directly involving petitioner who is period employment contract. the OSG posits the court or if the foreign employer reneges on its that there are rights and privileges exclusive to local obligation. viz. case of illegal dismissal.: Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission.A. Hence.The Arguments of Petitioner The Arguments of Respondents Petitioner contends that the subject clause is In their Comment and Memorandum. but not available to OFWs. while local workers perform their jobs guidance of affected OFWs. the OSG defends the rationale behind the subject Petitioner argues that in mitigating the solidary liability of clause as a police power measure adopted to mitigate the placement agencies.42 deployed locally or overseas. Not only that. in deploying Filipino migrant workers. Though there are conflicting rulings on the essential elements that distinguish OFWs from local this. as held in statement made by the Solicitor General in his Coyoca v. there exists in this case an actual and other emoluments he is entitled to under his fixed. as this was not stipulated the rights and welfare of all Filipino workers. Article II of the Constitution. liability for money the provision does not violate the equal protection clause claims was reduced under Section 10 of R. its provisions could not monetary award for local workers when their dismissal is have impaired petitioner's 1998 employment contract. Hence. and not at the earliest and a fixed salary package.

their provisions reviews the constitutionality of a classification embodied are read into contracts and deemed a part thereof. education.54 Nonetheless. and general welfare of the people are be applied and to resolving such questions in accordance generally applicable not only to future contracts but even with the standards laid down by the law itself.64 Article XIII sum salary for the entire unexpired portion of his 12. the issue on the constitutionality of the subject clause But even if the Court were to disregard the timeline. No. Article III of the Constitution guarantees: take up the issue in its decision. and not just for a period of as to place of deployment. interposition of the issue in the pleadings before a particularly the subject clause.65 with the stipulations in his contract on the term of his Such rights are not absolute but subject to the inherent employment and the fixed salary package he will receive57 power of Congress to incorporate. however. for the with said labor tribunal. morals. in a law: a) the deferential or rational basis scrutiny in the non-impairment clause under Section 10. power of judicial review or the power to declare Article III of the Constitution.A. as to laws already in existence. but in his Motion for Partial Reconsideration ground that it impinges on the impairment clause. such as the Article II and Section 3. such that. Section 18. equally enjoyed by workers of similar category.62 provisions. to be Section 10. The CA. on the other hand. No. because the monetary claim of petitioner to his lump.56 Petitioner's interposition of the as a protected sector? constitutional issue before the CA was undoubtedly The answer is in the affirmative. To Filipino workers. a is not tenable.67 b) the middle-tier or intermediate scrutiny in which the government must show that the challenged . unconstitutional a law or a provision thereof. peace. if not considered in the trial. the rights guaranteed under the Thus. deemed seasonably raised because it is not the NLRC but particularly the recruitment and deployment of OFWs. its to those already in existence. As aptly observed by the OSG. the classification must comply with these No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be requirements: 1) it is based on substantial distinctions. it cannot be argued that R.53 and reiterated in his Petition law was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the for Certiorari before the CA. clause. It should be 8042 in 1995 preceded the execution of the employment borne in mind that the requirement that a constitutional contract between petitioner and respondents in 1998. and 4) it applies equally to all laws newly enacted have only a prospective operation. Article III of the Constitution provides: valid. without distinction month employment contract. Article II is which the challenged classification needs only be shown limited in application to laws about to be enacted that to be rationally related to serving a legitimate state would in any way derogate from existing acts or contracts interest.A. clause. the issue is State to regulate a business.A.A.66 and cannot affect acts or contracts already perfected.A. 3) it is not limited The prohibition is aligned with the general principle that to existing conditions only. and not to inquire into the validity of its State to promote public welfare. it cannot be their 1998 employment contract. full protection of their rights three months. it is germane to the purposes of the law. abridging or in any manner changing the of three months only as provided under the subject intention of the parties thereto. it have incorporated into it all the provisions of R. 8042. seasonable. is vested with the Does the subject clause violate Section 1. the enactment of R.59 There are three levels of scrutiny at which the Court however. security and parity: all monetary benefits should be Does the subject clause violate Section 10. strikes at the very core of the subject and welfare. when the parties executed the pleadings before that competent court. No person shall be deprived of life. issue be raised at the earliest opportunity entails the Hence. liberty.55 thus. when it sees fit. they were deemed to considered at the trial and. No.63 Article II and Section 3. not in petitioner's appeal with the subject clause may not be declared unconstitutional on the NLRC.60 Thus.61 Police power legislations adopted by the in the present case is limited to determining questions of State to promote the health. Article XIII on labor subject clause. which is enjoyed by. 8042 is to good order. the stage is all set for the determination of the foregoing constitutional provisions translate to economic constitutionality of the subject clause. The CA was therefore remiss in failing to Section 1. Rather. accord all members of the labor sector. fact to which the legislative policy of R.computed his monetary award based on the salary period by enlarging. none should be denied the protection of the laws The answer is in the negative. system of classification into its legislation. the was first raised. yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the 8042. The NLRC is a labor tribunal that dignity and well-being of OFWs wherever they may be merely performs a quasi-judicial function – its function employed. if the issue is not raised in contract of the parties. The constitutional challenge is also timely. cannot be considered on appeal. and Section 18. for all private contracts must foremost function is to administer and enforce R. while all Article III of the Constitution on non-impairment monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal of contracts? degree.58 members of the class. safety.52 Records disclose that 8042. Petitioner's claim that the subject clause unduly interferes others in like circumstances. No. impaired the employment competent court. or property The third condition that the constitutional issue be without due process of law nor shall any person be denied critical to the resolution of the case likewise obtains the equal protection of the law. No. the CA which has the competence to resolve the with the noble end in view of ensuring respect for the constitutional issue. 2) passed. profession or calling. or spared the burden imposed on.

x x x [T]here is gender75 but not when the classification is drawn along thus in the Philippine Constitution no lack of doctrinal income categories. Officers of concept of law and justice. and the legislative by the Constitution. and always with our own specifically withheld from the lower grades. It is must decide our own problems in the light of our own akin to a distinction based on economic class and status. The implications are quite disturbing: BSP rank- More importantly.76 support for a more vigorous state effort towards achieving It is different in the Philippine setting. they must be construed to serve our and-file employees are paid the strictly regimented rates own public interest which is the be-all and the end-all of of the SSL while employees higher in rank . Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. when they run afoul of the Constitution. This is true whether the actor committing the authorities are not per se controlling in this jurisdiction. More economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational significantly. Our laws must be construed in the BSP now receive higher compensation packages that accordance with the intention of our own lawmakers and are competitive with the industry. Social justice calls for the employed the standard of strict judicial scrutiny in its humanization of laws and the equalization of social and review of the constitutionality of said provision.72 national development. We should not place undue and be struck down regardless of the character or nature of the fawning reliance upon them and regard them as actor. are clear commands to the State to take affirmative triggered by suspect classifications73 based on race74 or action in the direction of greater equality. The command to promote compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive social justice in Article II. the Court will exercise recognition and respect by the courts of justice except judicial restraint in deciding questions of constitutionality.68 and c) strict judicial scrutiny69 in which a for the use of equal protection as a tool of effective legislative classification which impermissibly interferes judicial intervention. Our present Constitution has gone further in guaranteeing Inc.possessing all our laws. incumbent not only on the legislative and executive Finding that the disputed provision contained a suspect branches but also on the judiciary to translate this pledge classification based on salary grade. to wit: approximated. Congress retains its wide discretion in providing for a xxxx valid classification. indispensable mental crutches without which we cannot xxxx come to our own decisions through the employment of our In the case at bar. the quest for a better and more "equal" world calls that interest. or the perpetuation of prejudice exacting adherence to constitutional limitations. unconstitutional act is a private person or the government At best. the challenged proviso operates on the own endowments. Oppressive acts will many of our decisions. and the burden is upon the government "equality" as an ideal precisely in protest against crushing to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a inequities in Philippine society. with the exercise of a fundamental right70 or operates to Equality is one ideal which cries out for bold attention and the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class71 is presumed action in the Constitution. low- such intent may be deduced from the language of each law salaried employees are limited to the rates prescribed by and the context of other local legislation related thereto. that those with less privilege in life should have more in even when the rank-and-file employees of other GFIs had law. it was in this case that the Court revealed the and objectively secular conception may at least be broad outlines of its judicial philosophy.77 the constitutionality vital social and economic rights to marginalized groups of of a provision in the charter of the Bangko Sentral ng society. Judicial scrutiny would right. Nevertheless. The Preamble proclaims unconstitutional. and of our qualities and even with the higher grades as recipients of a benefit idiosyncrasies as a people. in "all phases of means to protect such interest. strict judicial scrutiny is XIII. A weak and watered down view would call for the special protection by the Constitution requires a stricter abdication of this Court’s solemn duty to strike down any judicial scrutiny finds no support in American or English law repugnant to the Constitution and the rights it jurisprudence. these foreign decisions and enshrines. special protection. advancement . the view that prejudice to persons accorded strict. including labor. and require a stricter and more of a fundamental right. Pilipinas (BSP). v. interests and needs. In Central Bank a reasonable measure of equality.classification serves an important state interest and that xxxx the classification is at least substantially related to serving Further. And it need not be stressed that our public higher and better education and opportunities for career interest is distinct and different from others. this discretion would be given deferential treatment. The deference recognizing the broad discretion given to Congress in stops where the classification violates a fundamental exercising its legislative power. Section 10. and its policies should be accorded Under most circumstances. Court must discharge its primary role as the vanguard of But if the challenge to the statute is premised on the denial constitutional guaranties. while the poorer. they are persuasive and have been used to support itself or one of its instrumentalities. We live in a different ambience and basis of the salary grade or officer-employee status. Under the policy of social justice. And the obligation to afford protection to labor is been exempted from the SSL by their respective charters. the SSL. a government financial institution (GFI). (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) Employee Association. the Court deliberately into a living reality. or prejudices persons accorded special protection be based on the "rational basis" test." further explicitated in Article Under American jurisprudence.are given higher compensation packages to . judicial scrutiny ought to be more Admittedly. the law bends over backward to accommodate the was challenged for maintaining its rank-and-file interests of the working class on the humane justification employees under the Salary Standardization Law (SSL). When these violations arise. Rational against persons favored by the Constitution with basis should not suffice.

v. if not all. the unexpired portion of private discriminatory intent against.00 equivalent to his three months’ Imbued with the same sense of "obligation to afford salary. No. Another was Triple-Eight Integrated Services.600. October adjustment . No. especially in 10(5). respondent’s employment contract is eight (8) months. valid or perceives in the subject clause a suspect classification authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the prejudicial to OFWs.82 year or more.who have the real economic and financial need for the Relations Commission (Second Division. examination reveals that the subject clause has a In the case at bar. extend to them a decent standard working for one year and two months. Inc.and not the officers Employment System and Services v. a 12-month contract.600. OFWs at two levels: Private respondent should therefore be paid his basic First. a closer whichever is less.78 it was in Marsaman entire unexpired portion of four and one-half months of Manning Agency. OFWs vis-à-vis local workers with fixed-period respondent Erlinda Osdana) who was originally granted employment. to wit: Case Title A plain reading of Sec. the unexpired desideratum deserves strict scrutiny by this Court before portion of his contract. 3 months . Inc. Ut res magis valeat quam 5 months pereat. neutral.e. for it from overseas employment without just. however. the subject clause appears facially three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term.. provide two-year employment contract. This is evident from the words 2 months "for every year of the unexpired term" which follows 4 months the words "salaries x x x for three months. Second. whether his salaries for Unexpired Period the unexpired portion of his employment contract or Period Applied in the Computation of the Monetary three (3) months’ salary for every year of the unexpired Award term. (Emphasis supplied) award to SR3. and an invidious impact on. After serving for one year and seven- year vis-à-vis OFWs with employment contracts of one and-a-half months. Considering that majority. whichever is less. to wit: protection to labor. the Court reduced the it can pass muster. National Labor Relations her contract. Prior to Marsaman.entice them to stay. and December 1998).80 (Emphasis supplied) Talidano v. v. there were two cases in the rank-and-file employees consist of people whose which the Court made conflicting rulings on Section status and rank in life are less and limited. National Labor . On appeal. and improve the quality of life for all. 1999) that the Court laid The Marsaman interpretation of Section 10(5) has since down the following rules on the application of the periods been adopted in the following cases: prescribed under Section 10(5) of R.A. 8042. OFWs with employment contracts of less than one salary corresponding to three (3) months or a total of year vis-à-vis OFWs with employment contracts of one SR3. among OFWs with employment contracts of National Labor Relations Commission (Third Division." Any act his dismissal illegal and awarded him SR13. 804. the OFW involved was illegally dismissed 12 months two months into his 10-month contract. However. but was dismissed after adequate social services." To follow 4 months petitioners’ thinking that private respondent is entitled to Bahia Shipping v. One was Asian Center for Career and terms of job marketability." the Court in the present case also Under Section 10 of R. this being the lesser value. i. unexpired portion of his employment contract or for Upon cursory reading. The LA declared of living.00 as of Congress that runs counter to this constitutional lump-sum salary covering eight months. This is in accord with the policy of the 1998). respondent Osdana was illegally year or more dismissed. Reynaldo Chua 85 three (3) months salary only simply because it is the 9 months lesser amount is to completely disregard and overlook 8 months some words used in the statute while giving effect to 4 months some. for it applies to all OFWs.83 which involved an OFW (therein Third. a worker dismissed employs the standard of strict judicial scrutiny.81 which involved an OFW who was awarded a Constitution "to free the people from poverty. care Centennial Transmarine v.A. Falcon87 In Marsaman. which was deemed renewed for OFWs with employment contracts of less than one another 12 months. This is contrary to the well-established rule in 4 months legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute. Maguad84 employment contract concerned has a term of at least 6 months one (1) year or more. but was awarded 3 months his salaries for the remaining 8 months and 6 days of his 9 months contract. dela Cruz l86 should be taken that every part or word thereof be given 9 months effect since the law-making body is presumed to know 4 months the meaning of the words employed in the statue and to 5 months have used them advisedly. comes into play only when the Skippers v.600. more than one year. Commission79 (Second Division. and the Court awarded her salaries for the As pointed out by petitioner. 10 clearly reveals that the Contract Period choice of which amount to award an illegally dismissed Period of Service overseas contract worker. it is they .

98 Flourish Maritime v. NLRC. Under more or less 9 months the subject clause.00 for the unexpired portion of 14 3 months months of his contract.000. the respondent OFW worked 5 months for only 2 months out of his 6-month contract. in case of illegal dismissal.00 is the lesser JSS v. in case of illegal dismissal. Oriental v. OFW-A will be entitled to 3 months US$9. Almanzor 95 2 years 2 years 2 months 26 days 22 months 23 months and 4 days 22 months 6 months or 3 months for each year of contract Phil. 12 months month contracts were awarded their salaries for only 3 4 months . CA 89 To illustrate the disparity even more vividly. et al. 8042 on July 14. Integrated v. Villanos 96 2 years 1 year. EDI v. but was 19 months awarded his salaries for the remaining 4 months.A. the respondent OFWs in Oriental and PCL who Barros v.Univan v.00. the subject clause 2 years classifies OFWs into two categories.102 The disparity in the treatment of these two groups cannot 2 years be discounted.000.00 and a hypothetical OFW-B with an 3 months employment contract of 15 months with the same PCL v. Both commenced 12 months work on the same day and under the same employer. and more than 2 months were illegally dismissed after one month of work. The first category 9 months includes OFWs with fixed-period employment contracts 15 months of less than one year. 12 months The disparity becomes more aggravating when the Court 16 days takes into account jurisprudence that. they are 15 months entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired portion Agoy v. 1995. et al.00. prior to the 11 months and 24 days effectivity of R. NLRC90 monthly salary rate of US$1. No. The second category consists of OFWs 2 years with fixed-period employment contracts of one year or 2 months more. whereas OFW-B will be 12 months entitled to only US$3.000. they are entitled to 22 months monetary award equivalent to only 3 months of the 22 months unexpired portion of their contracts. equivalent to his salaries 21 days for 3 months of the unexpired portion of his contract. In 19 months contrast. CA. The 9 months and 7 days matrix below speaks for itself: 2 months and 23 days Case Title 2 months and 23 days Contract Period Phil.00. Nayona91 9 months of his contract. NLRC. 9 months and 28 days 23 months and 23 days 6 months or 3 months for each year of contract JGB v. equivalent to his salaries for the remaining Olarte v. et al.000. Employ v.103 had also worked for about 2 months out of their 12. no matter how long the period of their Pentagon v. Paramio.97 illegally 3 months dismissed OFWs. In Skippers. NLRC101 of their contract. 11 months and 9 days instead of US$14. Adelantar93 employment contracts.000. NLC100 As the foregoing matrix readily shows. Even 12 months the OFWs involved in Talidano and Univan who had 3 months worked for a longer period of 3 months out of their 12- 9 months month contracts before being illegally dismissed were 3 months awarded their salaries for only 3 months.Ferrer92 amount. CA 88 months of the unexpired portion of their contracts. the Court 12 months assumes a hypothetical OFW-A with an employment more than 2 months contract of 10 months at a monthly salary rate of 10 months US$1.94 Period of Service 12 months Unexpired Period 10 months Period Applied in the Computation of the Monetary 2 months Award Unexpired portion ATCI v. were entitled to their salaries for 12 months the entire unexpired portions of their contracts. as the US$3. NLRC99 Athenna Manpower v.000. et al. 10 months and 28 days 7 days 1 month 23 months and 23 days 1 year.

the original term shipping company for the illegal discharge of its managers must be more than one year. without months for every year of the unexpired term. but all the while sparing the dismissed OFWs was in place. whatever prior to the expiration of their fixed-term employment.8 months To concretely illustrate the application of the foregoing 8 months interpretation of the subject clause.108 to wit: the subject clause. and second. This uniform system was other category from such prejudice. OFW-D will be money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their entitled to US$11. 8042 effects of the subject clause.000. .the subject Article 605.000. would be the unexpired term thereof will not reach even a The Court therein held the shipping company liable for the year.00 or the latter's salaries for 3 their basic salaries multiplied by the entire unexpired months out of the 12-month unexpired term of the portion of their employment contracts. while those who are illegally dismissed salaries and subsistence allowance of its illegally with one year or more remaining in their contracts shall dismissed employees for the entire unexpired portion of be covered by the subject clause. No. for there are only 11 months introduced a differentiated rule of computation of the left in the latter's contract period. serious matters. the Court now has misgivings on the Article 299. all OFWs. If the contracts between the merchants and accuracy of the Marsaman interpretation.00 or the latter's total salaries for the 12 their monetary benefits in case of illegal dismissal. No. whichever is less. thereof.110 in shall be entitled to their salaries for the entire unexpired which the Court held the shipping company liable for the portion thereof. Ogilvie. the subject clause creates a sub-layer damage caused to the vessel or to its cargo by malice or of discrimination among OFWs whose contract periods manifest or proven negligence. who each have a 24- 12 months month contract at a salary rate of US$1. Considering that there is at 5 months and 18 days least 12 months remaining in the contract period of OFW- It is plain that prior to R. 8042. v. C. months for every year of the unexpired term. Their months unexpired portion of the contract. term must be at least one year. Carilla104 hypothetical OFW-C and OFW-D.106 but the length of the provides: unexpired portion of the contract period -. 6 months and 22 days OFW-C is illegally dismissed on the 12th month. their shop clerks and employees should have been made The Court notes that the subject clause "or for three (3) of a fixed period.000. which arithmetically or voyage.000. that "every year" is but part of an "unexpired the loss and damage suffered. Consequently. In Reyes v. OFW-C will be entitled. dismissed with less than one year left in their contracts Inc.107 Among OFWs With Employment Contracts of More The earliest rule prescribing a uniform system of Than One Year computation was actually Article 299 of the Code of Upon closer examination of the terminology employed in Commerce (1888). category whose contracts have an unexpired portion of OFWs vis-à-vis Local Workers one year or more and subjecting them to the peculiar With Fixed-Period Employment disadvantage of having their monetary awards limited to As discussed earlier. OFW-D is spared from the The enactment of the subject clause in R.105 Persons violating this clause shall be subject to indemnify Corollarily. and 5 months and 18 days OFW-D. for otherwise. the subject clause applies to the computation of the regardless of contract periods or the unexpired portions latter's monetary benefits. the unexpired provisions contained in the following articles.A. and their monetary their employment contracts. simply because the applicable even to local workers with fixed-term latter's unexpired contracts fall short of one year.A. and Viewed in that light. 8042. the Court assumes Philippine Transmarine v. which is equivalent to his/her employment periods. The Compañia Maritima. for if it were any shorter. none of the contracting parties. prior to R. may withdraw from the less" contains the qualifying phrases "every year" and fulfillment of said contract until the termination of the "unexpired term. Thus. No.00. benefits limited to their salaries for three months only. with the exception of the term" is significant in many ways: first. habitual drunkenness. If the contracts of the captain and members clause applies in cases when the unexpired portion of the of the crew with the agent should be for a definite period contract period is at least one year. on the 13th month. whichever is There is a more specific rule as far as seafarers are less" shall apply is not the length of the original contract concerned: Article 605 of the Code of Commerce which period as held in Marsaman. were treated alike in terms of the computation of not to US$12. they cannot be discharged until the fulfillment requires that the original contract period be more than one of their contracts. employment.109 the Court applied there would be no occasion for such unexpired term to be the foregoing provision to determine the liability of a measured by every year. theft. contract. whichever is the consent of the other. robbery. but to the lesser claims were subjected to a uniform rule of computation: amount of US$3.A. Thus. the word period agreed upon. a uniform their salaries for 3 months or for the unexpired portion system of computation of the monetary awards of illegally thereof. are for more than one year: those who are illegally Article 605 was applied to Madrigal Shipping Company." By its ordinary meaning.00 per month. "term" means a limited or definite extent of time. except for reasons of insubordination in year. On the other hand. in the process singling out one total salaries for the entire 11-month unexpired portion. the more decisive factor in the salaries of its managers for the remainder of their fixed- determination of when the subject clause "for three (3) term employment.

the Court dug deep into the records More significantly. it is noted that in Mackay Radio & and calibrated by history. The OSG defends the subject clause as a police power such as in First Asian Trans & Shipping Agency. Chapter 3. Inc. protects the interest of local placement agencies. 98 Mich. the Court in Aldaz v. (Emphasis salaries corresponding to 15 months.120 an OFW who getting hired by foreign employers. illegally when an employee is wrongfully discharged it is his duty dismissed OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or to seek other employment of the same kind in the same more in their employment contract have since been community. the same principles were applied to but found no compelling state interest that the subject cases involving overseas Filipino workers whose fixed. mechanics. for the purpose of reducing the damages differently treated in that their money claims are subject resulting from such wrongful discharge.the Court awarded him before the fulfillment of the contract. Filipino seafarers have better chance of National Labor Relations Commission.113 And in Relations Commission. which period employment contract as a baby sitter." The limitation also was illegally dismissed prior to the expiration of her fixed.119 involving seafarers who were illegally seafarers overseas x x x. When an employee is monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are wrongfully discharged under a contract of employment illegally discharged. measure "designed to protect the employment of Filipino Ople. v. the Court Sections 2 (Contract of Labor) and 3 (Contract for a Piece now subjects the classification to a strict judicial of Work). 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889. 61 N. in Vinta Maritime Co. 99 Mich.) portion of his contract.124 It is akin to the paramount Telegraph Co. 8042. the new provisions state interest through the least restrictive means.123 an OFW whose 12-month both Lemoine and Palomar. clause may possibly serve. The Court arrived at the same ruling in Anderson replaced by Art. OFWs and local workers to them by the terms of their contract. Inc. it imposes a 3-month cap on the his prima facie damage is the amount which he would be claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year entitled to had he continued in such employment until the or more in their contracts. of the Civil Code do not expressly provide for the What constitutes compelling state interest is measured by remedies available to a fixed-term worker who is illegally the scale of rights and powers arrayed in the Constitution discharged. and determines whether it serves a compelling Article 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889. 1950. No. local workers are entitled to recover months of his contract. 492. the Court adopted the general contract was illegally cut short in the second month was principle that in actions for wrongful discharge founded declared entitled to his salaries for the remaining 10 on Article 1586. months [sic].. By limiting the liability to three discharged. skill. 2. the Court in Lemoine v. is upon the defendant. Inc. On the computation with fixed-term employment who were illegally of the amount of such damages. No. 8042. However. that specifically the adoption of the subject clause. discharged were treated alike in terms of the computation Gay114 held: of their money claims: they were uniformly entitled to The doctrine is well-established in American their salaries for the entire unexpired portions of their jurisprudence.A. Title I.. the burden of showing that he on local workers with fixed-term employment. Y. v. in the computation of the obtainable. Farrell vs. The subject clause singles out one District No. v. However.116 Much like scrutiny. the New Civil Code took effect with disadvantage.126 case involving the illegal discharge of a local worker or in maintaining access to information on matters of whose fixed-period employment contract was entered into public concern. This interpretation of Article 1586 was reiterated in Finally. while to a 3-month cap..)115 (Emphasis supplied) classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar On August 30.122 a Filipino disjunctive "or" in Article 1586 as a conjunctive "and" so working as a security officer in 1989 in Angola was as to apply the provision to local workers who are awarded his salaries for the remaining period of his 12- employed for a time certain although for no particular month contract after he was wrongfully discharged. Inc. the unexpired supplied. 43. Hotel de France Company. Allen vs. and vulnerable sector protected by the Constitution. Field hands. after only nine months on the job -.118 In the present case. But with the enactment of R. Title VIII. National Labor Garcia Palomar v. and other involved a foreman hired in 1988 in Saudi Arabia for a laborers hired for a certain time and for a certain work fixed term of two years. Rich. and nothing has been brought to our contracts. and that other employment of a like nature was suspect classification in that. such as the public interest in 1586 of the Civil Code of 1889 and applied the same to a safeguarding health or maintaining medical standards. to wit: v. damages to the extent of the amount stipulated to be paid In sum. In Asia World Recruitment. School employment. Whitlark. term employment contracts were illegally terminated.121 which Article 1586.111 Article 299 of the Code of Commerce was contract. was awarded .A. Inc.127 in 1952. v. National Labor Relations Commission.. Alkan112 read the National Labor Relations Commission. failed to make an effort to secure other employment of a The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a like nature. Chapter 3. Citing Manresa. but who was illegally dismissed cannot leave or be dismissed without sufficient cause.. when the new Civil Code was already in effect. Book IV. v. prior to R. other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term 362. Daly.While Article 605 has remained good law up to the salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of her present. new provisions on fixed-term employment: Section 2 There being a suspect classification involving a (Obligations with a Period). (Howard vs. whereas no such limitation is imposed this is the general rule. but none on the claims of termination of the period. artisans. In Teknika Skills and Trade Services.117 the Court carried over the interest of the state125 for which some individual liberties principles on the payment of damages underlying Article must give way. attention to the contrary under Spanish jurisprudence.

be. No.A.130 but the speech makes no reference to the discrimination against OFWs under the subject clause. the idea that private business interest can be elevated to the claim arising out of an employer-employee relationship level of a compelling state interest is odious. by mitigating the solidary liability of placement On the other hand. The POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary Recruitment and Employment of Land-Based Overseas agreement on any money claims exclusive of damages Workers. The OSG locates the purpose of R. their liability being solidary. or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino Moreover. if applicable. dated February 4. to satisfy any such workers and/or their Philippine agents. There can never be a justification for any Sec." However. such callous and cavalier rationale will have to contains a provision on money claims. the Court However. Hence. . Money Claims. adoption of the subject clause. faith and which fulfill their obligations are unnecessarily But significantly.otherwise may be made to shoulder millions of pesos in (2) Suspension for not more than ninety (90) days.A. 14314). or "termination pay. the subject clause was inserted and eventually adopted as This measure redounds to the benefit of the migrant the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R. The POEA agreement in violation of this paragraph shall be null and Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and void. The survival of legitimate placement agencies transcripts of the "Bicameral Conference Committee helps [assure] the government that migrant workers are (Conference Committee) Meetings on the Magna Carta properly deployed and are employed under decent and on OCWs (Disagreeing Provisions of Senate Bill No. the claims arising out of an employer. That the penalties herein provided shoulder the payment of money claims in the event that shall be without prejudice to any liability which any such jurisdiction over the foreign employer is not acquired by official may have incurred under other existing laws or the court or if the foreign employer reneges on its rules and regulations as a consequence of violating the obligation. Section 10 of SB 2077 does not penalized for the acts of the foreign employer.129 (Emphasis supplied) 2077 and House Bill No. Often. placement agencies that are in good provisions of this paragraph. 2077 (SB 2077) agencies. That any default on their contractual obligations to migrant installment payments. placement agencies. Assuming that. exemplary and other forms of damages. the Labor Arbiters of the National one sector. underlying reason for the adoption of the subject clause. as advanced by the OSG. The employee relationship or by virtue of the complaint. 2003. 14314 (HB 14314). withheld until the said official complies therewith. These compromise or voluntary settlement shall not be more disciplinary measures range from temporary than two (2) months. The workers whose welfare the government seeks to Court examined the rationale of the subject clause in the promote. especially when the favored sector is composed original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide. humane conditions. Provided. imposes administrative under this Section shall not be less than fifty percent disciplinary measures on erring foreign employers who (50%) of such money claims: Provided. or caused to be. 8042 in the In fine. subject the responsible officials to any or all of the Resort to these administrative measures is undoubtedly following penalties: the less restrictive means of aiding local placement (1) The salary of any such official who fails to render his agencies in enforcing the solidary liability of their decision or resolution within the prescribed period shall foreign principals. while within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the the disadvantaged sector is composed of OFWs whose complaint. protection no less than the Constitution commands. Bonifacio Gallego in sponsorship of burden of proving the existence of a compelling state House Bill No. Any compromise/voluntary disqualification to preventive suspension. however. moral. . To protect provide for any rule on the computation of money them and to promote their continued helpful contribution claims. the Government has failed to discharge its speech of Rep. vis their foreign principals.Notwithstanding any provision form of government action that alleviates the burden of of law to the contrary. there are mechanisms already The liability of the principal and the in place that can be employed to achieve that purpose recruitment/placement agency or any and all claims without infringing on the constitutional rights of OFWs. under this Section shall be joint and several. 2002. 10. let alone a compelling does the OSG cite the source of its perception of the state one. Senate Bill No. even if the purpose of the subject clause is to workers for overseas employment including claims for lessen the solidary liability of placement agencies vis-a- actual. to wit: be rejected. nowhere in the Comment or Memorandum finds no discernible state interest. in deploying Filipino migrant workers. contains Non-compliance with the mandatory period for similar administrative disciplinary measures against resolutions of cases provided under this Section shall erring foreign employers. No. dated May 23. from which the law interest that would justify the perpetuation of the originated. that is sought to be protected or advanced by the interest sought to be served by the subject clause. Employment of Seafarers."128 (3) Dismissal from the service with disqualification to The OSG explained further: hold any appointive public office for five (5) years. liability for A rule on the computation of money claims containing money are reduced under Section 10 of RA 8042. 8042. of private businesses such as placement agencies. the purpose of That is only natural for none of the 29 provisions in HB the subject clause is to protect the employment of OFWs 14314 resembles the subject clause. but imposes the same burden on another Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the sector.

for it deprives him of property. Employee Association exaggerate the significance of actuating: Section 3. and the realization of ideals therein substantive due process. the subject clause in the 5th paragraph of Section constitutional agenda that the Court in Central Bank 10 of R. because these are fixed benefits that violation of which the questioned clause may be declared have been stipulated into his contract. that the actual "full protection to labor" and "security of tenure". The subject clause being unconstitutional. would be impractical. judicial that the clause violates not just petitioner's right to equal bodies will be at a loss. 8042.135 (Emphasis added) Petitioner contends that his overtime and leave pay Thus.134 has described to be not self.Thus.A. Thus. and the of OFWs to their three-month salary in case of illegal broadest interpretation possible suggests a blanket shield dismissal. is to give them a better chance of getting hired in favor of labor against any form of removal regardless by foreign employers. the constitutional mandates of protection to labor Central Bank applied Article XIII in conjunction with and security of tenure may be deemed as self-executing the equal protection clause. floodgates of litigation to every worker or union over The word salaries in Section 10(5) does not include every conceivable violation of so broad a concept as overtime and leave pay. but of the employers' as governmental purpose. in the sense that these are automatically acknowledged without the application of the equal protection clause. when purpose of the subject clause of limiting the entitlement examined in isolation. approach the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the Puno. for the judiciary as well. to protect the welfare of the By the foregoing definition alone. Section 3. the provisions on social justice require legislative On the Third Issue enactments for their enforceability. leave pay and other bonuses. No. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Without specific and pertinent legislation. 8042 is violative of the right of petitioner (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) Employee and other OFWs to equal protection. there would be certain misgivings if one is to by then Associate Justice now Chief Justice Reynato S. Article XIII. be a source of a positive enforceable right to entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of stave off the dismissal of an employee for just cause nine months and 23 days of his employment contract. v.the Court may recognize the existence presumed self-executing. As of circumstance. exclusive of enforceable right. with special protection -. social justice for labor. not only The subject clause does not state or imply any definitive the rights of the labor sector. but also her right to substantive due process to approximate at least the aims of the Constitution. As pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior to the enactment manifested by several framers of the 1987 Constitution. doubtless-but still hardly within the or the pleadings of respondent that would indicate that contemplation of the framers. Subsequent legislation is there is an existing governmental purpose for the subject still needed to define the parameters of these guaranteed clause. rights to ensure the protection and promotion. However.A. and holiday pay is recognition. and observed without need for any enabling legislation. DOLE Department Order No. 33. in Agabon v. without any existing espousal of such view presents the dangerous tendency valid governmental purpose. formulated the judicial precept that when the subject clause from the lone perspective that the clause challenge to a statute is premised on the perpetuation of directly violates state policy on labor under Section 3. has no life or force of its own as elucidated in Agabon. penned Further. to declare that the constitutional provisions are Along the same line of reasoning. unconstitutional.137 Article III of the Constitution. the Court further holds enough to guarantee the full exercise of the rights that the subject clause violates petitioner's right to embodied therein. No. expressed.1avvphi1 Association. owing to the failure to serve proper notice or hearing. XIII being one. therefore. this Court.133 particularly Section 3 thereof. This is plain speculation. the The view that the concepts of suspect classification and nature of which.131 prejudice against persons favored by the Constitution Article XIII of the Constitution. Its utility is best limited to being an impetus compensation for any work "performed" on designated not just for the executive and legislative departments. The consisting of monetary benefits. Article XIII cannot be treated as a should form part of the salary basis in the computation of principal source of direct enforceable rights. Ultimately.132 there are some which this of a suspect classification and subject the same to strict Court has declared not judicially enforceable. there is nothing in the text of the law or unimpeachable right to continued employment-a utopian the records of the deliberations leading to its enactment notion. in which directly bestow on the working class any actual salary is understood as the basic wage. whereas overtime a sector for whom the Constitution urges protection pay is compensation for all work "performed" in excess through executive or legislative action and judicial of the regular eight hours. Inc. Section 3 of Article XIII cannot. It may unwittingly risk opening the Petitioner is mistaken. formulating their own conclusion protection. Article XIII does not Standard Employment Contract of Seafarers. but merely clothes it with the status of overtime. by itself. petitioner is on its own. series 1996. but rest days and holidays. National Labor strict judicial scrutiny formulated in Central Bank Relations Commission.such as the working class or a While all the provisions of the 1987 Constitution are section thereof -. for the his monetary award. Article judicial scrutiny. there is no basis for working class. and it is for that precise reason well. For seafarers like petitioner. under Section 1. or even just a pretext of one. if not unrealistic. And it was in fact consistent with that the automatic inclusion of overtime and holiday pay in . The guarantees of The argument of the Solicitor General. Article XIII is a groundless apprehension. This interpretation implies an earlier discussed. are facially unqualified. of R. provides a It must be stressed that Section 3.136 of being overbroad and exaggerated.

puesto que tales ya han dejado deser conditions to be satisfied before a seaman could be empleados suyos por terminacion del contrato en virtud del entitled to overtime pay which should be computed on paro.. represented by TORIBIO TEODORO. LAUREL.00 per month. and the December 8. 8042 is DECLARED Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme to systematically prevent UNCONSTITUTIONAL. INC. That the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio G. unexpired portion of the contract is unwarranted since there was shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY making it the same is given during the actual service of the necessary for him to temporarily lay off the members of the seamen. con ell. has filed an opposition both to the contrato. forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army. whichever is less" in the 5th paragraph of 2. v. the existence and functions of which are illegal. Commonwealth Act No. As the Court held in Centennial Transmarine. y que se han visto obligados a cesar en sus tarbajos por Union. haberse declarando paro forzoso en la fabrica en la cual In view of the conclusion reached by us and to be herein after tarbajan. no es culpable de practica should be disallowed in light of our ruling in Cagampan injusta in incurre en la sancion penal del articulo 5 de la Ley v. termina o bien por voluntad de cualquiera de las 9. unexpired term. que han celebrado The petitioner. 548. and unjustly favoring the National Workers' motion for reconsideration and moves that.400. Inc. In short.. asi individual como colectivo. dejan de ser empleados u obreros de la misma. in interpreting and applying the salutary provisions of a Claro M. judgment rendered herein. duracion y sin ser para una obra determiminada y que se Inc. 213. determinada. ANG TIBAY. 2004 the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his Decision and April 1.R. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and (Sections 2 and 5. the claim for the day's leave pay for the 1.: 7. the computation of petitioner's monetary award. Ang Tibay. J. Que un contrato de trabajo. That the supposed lack of leather materials claimed by Section 10 of Republic Act No. civil war in Spain cannot and should not be made applicable Antonio D. and avers: In the same vein. 1940 Teodoro. Que los obreros de una empresa fabril. the Court GRANTS the Petition. Casal for National Workers' Brotherhood. Inc. (re supposed delay of leather soles from of his employment contract consisting of nine months and the States) was but a scheme to systematically prevent the 23 days computed at the rate of US$1. we are of the opinion . unless 3. Dela Cruz. and 5. That the exhibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to the conclusions of the majority opinion of this Court: respondents that even with the exercise of due diligence they 1. That in the exercise by the laborers of their rights to NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD. That Toribio Teodoro's letter to the Philippine Army dated AWARDED his salaries for the entire unexpired portion September 29. Inc.) NATIONAL LABOR UNION. is entirely false and unsupported WHEREFORE. p. The respondent National Labor Union. National Labor Union Inc. respondents.. Paguia for National Labor Unon. L-46496 February 27. National Labor Relations Commission. Inc. 6. Recto for petitioner "Ang Tibay". we reconsider the following legal 8. 213 del Commonwealth.. That Toribio Teodoro's claim that on September 26. Court of Industrial Relations for a new trial. representation are highly essential and indispensable. the payment of overtime pay and leave pay consecuencia de un paro forzoso. 1938. 4. petitioner's printed memorandum.138 niega a readmitir a dichos obreros que cesaron como However. Que un patrono o sociedad que ha celebrado un contrato there is evidence that he performed work during those colectivo de trabajo con sus osbreros sin tiempo fijo de periods. No. The by the records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of subject clause "or for three months for every year of the Accounts of native dealers in leather. stead with reference to the motion for a new trial of the respondent National Labor Union.) manager and propietor. petitioners. Appeals are MODIFIED to the effect that petitioner is 3. 25. That the century provisions of the Civil Code which had Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney been (the) principal source of dissensions and continuous Barcelona for the Court of Industrial Relations. sin tiempo motion for reconsideration of the respondent National Labor fijo. aunque su negativa a readmitir The rendition of overtime work and the submission of se deba a que dichos obreros pertenecen a un determinado sufficient proof that said was actually performed are organismo obrero. to wit: No. could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as sin termino fijo de duracion o que no sea para una evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations.. 2005 Resolution of the Court of CONTRACT with the Philippine Army. collective bargaining. 2. 1938.. ya individual ya colectivamente. industrial peace has always been the rule. prays for the vacation of the judgement rendered by the pay but the entitlement to such benefit must first be majority of this Court and the remanding of the case to the established. That the attached documents and exhibits are of such far- partes o cada vez que ilega el plazo fijado para el pago de los reaching importance and effect that their admission would salarios segun costumbre en la localidad o cunado se termine necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the la obra.S. modern labor legislation of American origin where the Jose M. the basis of 30% of the basic monthly salary. on the other the contract provision guarantees the right to overtime hand. (281 U. majority rule and elective vs. stated in his motion. That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair The Solicitor-General in behalf of the respondent Court of labor practice for discriminating against the National Labor Industrial Relations in the above-entitled case has filed a Union. for the reasons Brotherhood.

22 Phil. supra.S. on the part of the board to consider it. before "the right to adduce evidence. we deem it necessary. industrial or agricultural dispute. even in proceedings of this character: 103 (section 1). (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to and such industrial or agricultural dispute is submitted to the present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish Court by the Secretary of Labor or by any or both of the the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the parties to the controversy and certified by the Secretary of evidence presented. 1129. promulgated September 13. It is more an administrative Commonwealth Act No. or union.) evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or When directed by the President of the Philippines. the proceedings had before the Court of Industrial Relations G. or a maximum support it is a nullity. U. McCoy.R. in Morgan v. We shall proceed to voluntary arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes. is vain. It shall take cognizance or purposes of (1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing. entirely ignore or any question. 598. procedure. The fact. section 4. It is and equity and substantial merits of the case. to make controversies between labor and capital industry and in several observations regarding the nature of the powers of the agriculture. which prevention. with a view to determinating the necessity and obligation to decide right. investigate. laborers or tenants of farm-laborers involved exceeds thirty.S. (Paragraph 2. decision and settlement. It has jurisdiction over the the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean entire Philippines. 1. "the liberty and property tenancy or employment. that of having something to minimum wage or share of laborers or tenants. ibid. No. 1288. The whole transcript taken contains had occasion to point out that the Court of Industrial what transpired during the hearing and is more of a record of Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of contradictory and conflicting statements of opposing counsel. and the Act requires it to "act according to justice with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their own views. G. and in character. it may appeal to reconsideration of the Solicitor-General.. Before doing this. 103). labor as existing and proper to be by the Secretary of Labor 298 U. Court of Industrial Relations et al. ibid. disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers. and process in trials and investigations of an administrative regulate the relations between them.) This principle emanates from . 773. as will appear from perusal agricultural disputes. we affiliation or activity. matter controversy or dispute arising between. however. dispose of the motion for new trial of the respondent labor may employ mediation or conciliation for that purpose. the function of settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial or the Court of Industrial Relations. (section 13. however. 304 U. 56 S." investigate and study all industries established in a designated (3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the locality. (Commonwealth Act No. hours of labor or conditions of S. which is a departure from the rigid principles which should be observed in the trial of cases doctrine of the separation of governmental powers. order or decision any matter or determination which only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases may be deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of that are presented to it by the parties litigant. 46673. arbitration. In the strike or lockout. 58 shares or compensation. subject to. 468. Ct. we had in this case. provided that the number of employees. in and compulsory arbitration in order to determine specific interest of orderly procedure in cases of this nature. 906. technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation such manner as it may deem just and equitable. affirmative and dynamic. It this legislative policy. decide. to consider.S. sake of public interest. and settle that it can. (Chief Justice Hughes in Morgan v.) And in the light of of its organic law. appeals to this Court have been not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the especially regulated by the rules recently promulgated by the determination of disputes between employers and employees rules recently promulgated by this Court to carry into the but its functions in the determination of disputes between effect the avowed legislative purpose. between landlords and tenants or of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary farm-laborers. We have re-examined the entire record of In the case of Goseco vs.) It shall not be restricted to the than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. without the corresponding duty hearing the dispute and in the course of such hearing. it does imply a necessity which fairness of fixing and adopting for such industry or locality a cannot be disregarded. acting award. There is in reality here a mingling of executive Court of Industrial Relations and emphasize certain guiding and judicial functions. 1939. Ct.. it shall consideration. Such right is endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce them to settle the conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the dispute by amicable agreement. 1939. of any includes the right of the party interested or affected to present industrial or agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. ibid. and we have found no substantial evidence that occasion to joint out that the Court of Industrial Relations et the exclusion of the 89 laborers here was due to their union al. but may include in the Unlike a court of justice which is essentially passive. language of Chief Hughes." "canon" or rental to be paid by the "inquilinos" or tenants or (Edwards vs. without regard evident that these statements and expressions of views of to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any counsel have no evidentiary value. (Section 4. U. 46673. (Section 5.) In fine. promulgated September 13. the provisions of Commonwealth Act No.. ed. arising from differences as regards wages. in recur to the more effective system of official investigation the interest of orderly procedure in cases of this nature. 82 Law.) In the as existing and proper to be dealth with by the Court for the language of this court in Edwards vs.) It shall." (Section 20. 999. ed.. No. requirements of fair play. McCoy. in justifiable cases before it. namely. ibid. is more active. R.that it is not necessary to pass upon the motion for less to landowners. There are primary rights which must be respected accordance with. that employers and employees but its functions are far more the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from comprehensive and expensive. 80 law. brought before it. It is specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government.S. 103. a place when directly attached.

185. a conclusion of law. v. Petitioner. 81 Law. Inc. G. No. National Labor Relations Board. Imperial. the record is barren and does not controlling. ed. Agustin. to be proved by the petitioner with the "records of the Bureau Abilene and Southern Ry. The legislation which created the Court of and determining the facts in any given case.. with in any part of the Philippines for investigation. it is alleged that "the supposed lack of material (Interstate Commerce Commission v. . powers.S. 227 U. 220.) But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in leather". JJ. sufficient to observe here that. 563." Petitioner further alleges under oath that the exhibits substantial evidence.. Ct.) The Court of Industrial Relations may refer attributable to the parties adversely affected by the result. a justice of the peace or any public official shall be remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations. 83 Law... 185. The statute provides that "the rules of evidence agreement between the Ang Tibay and the National Worker's prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be Brotherhood (appendix A). Ct. in all Board. ed. Thompson conferred upon it. claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme adopted to 24 S.' The obvious purpose of this and similar satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which to predicate. . report and instruction that it reopen the case. v.. Ballston-Stillwater Knitting In the right of the foregoing fundamental principles.. and for that purpose. therefore. C. 194 U. The and decision are only advisory. detract from their duty actively have come to the conclusion that the interest of justice would to see that the law is enforced. 650. receive all such evidence recommendation. 57 S. v. 648. but their report Industrial Relations and under which it acts is new.) (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges. Ct. we them. after considerable discussions. 301 U. however. R.R. 93 performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority F. 4. promulgated November 29. ed. National attached to the petition to prove his substantial avernments" Labor Relations Board. Co. 15. ed. LEDESMA. and the reasons for the decision rendered.R. that "the National Workers Brotherhood Union of administrative procedure does not go far as to justify orders Ang Tibay is a company or employer union dominated by without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. No. 25. or at least contained in the record and Industrial Relations". 174585 October 19. & N. the right to appeal to board or commission. Villa-Real. there is no such statutory authority.S. 44. 2d 13. XXXVI O. L. (Consolidated Edison Co. 860. Co. Concepcion and shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any of its Moran. Industrial Relations may deem necessary. any industrial or agricultural dispute or any matter under its Accordingly. 431.. 225. but the evidence must be "substantial. So ordered.) It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 2 Cir. (Interstate Commence petition "are of such far reaching importance and effect that Commission vs. a same is hereby granted. National Labor Relations Board.S. 2d 758. The Electric Power v. does not now preclude the concession matter which would be deemed incompetent inn judicial of a new trial prayed for the by respondent National Labor proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order.the more fundamental is contrary to the vesting of unlimited decision. Ct.) Only by confining the administrative reversal of the judgment rendered herein.)" exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to have (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of at the hearing. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is power anywhere..) . and the entire record of this case provincial fiscal. Op. examiners or other subordinates to render final decision.. 142. (Section 9. 4 Cir. 59 S. and that the documents attached to the disclosed to the parties affected. Boards such other evidence as may be relevant to the main issue of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating involved. Products. 1937. 74 Law. 33 S. it is Co. 97 F. Ct. 57 Law. 88. must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy. 989. In the United States the difficulty is (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a solved with the enactment of statutory authority authorizing finding or conclusion (City of Manila vs. 206. 431. Commonwealth failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely Act No. their admission would necessarily mean the modification and 57 Law. of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in 624. and may delegate to such board or public as may be relevant and otherwise proceed in accordance with official such powers and functions as the said Court of the requirements set forth hereinabove. ibid. the motion for a new trial should be and the consideration or advisement to a local board of inquiry. Baird. and not G. 2007 simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a FEDERICO M. 131. can the latter considered the reply of Ang Tibay and its arguments against be protected in their right to know and meet the case against the petition.S. It should not. 568. but such delegation Avanceña. Labor Union Inc. national labor Relations (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should. Louisville and Nashville R. Co. United States v. Union. Ct. except as to the alleged 760. ed. provisions is to free administrative boards from the in a national way. controversial questions. 103." (Appalachian involved. 6 Cir. 48 Law. 2d 985. 98 F. to use the be better served if the movant is given opportunity to present authorized legal methods of securing evidence and informing at the hearing the documents referred to in his motion and itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy. however. concur. 227 U. Virginia and Maryland Coach Co.. J.. with 45844. vs. are so inaccessible to the respondents that even within the Adv. G. By and large. from work" and this avernment is desired 93 33 S. S." We have tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties. . JR. the existence and functions of which are Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute illegal. National Labor Relations Board v. (Section 10. Toribio Teodoro. Diaz. p. coming before them. ed. No. compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of This result. but in our case 1335). 187." (Washington. Interstate Commerce systematically discharged all the members of the National Commission v. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon literally Relations personally to decide all controversies power. render its decision in such a manner 965. 88. 147.

it was petitioner who failed or refused to petitioner as a drug user.12 Leon’s report citing his suspected drug use.8 affirmed the Decision dated 15 April 2003. private respondent countered that petitioner was November 2000. on 3 December 2000.1 result.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION petitioner’s surprise. as evidenced by his appointment. he was no longer allowed by the basis. citing his This incident prompted the petitioner to file the complaint for suspected drug use. in its assailed Decision and Resolution.10 Chief Accountant. Article IV of the private respondent’s Code of suspected of using illegal drugs. petitioner was able to believed his allegations and together with HR Manager claim at the training site his salary for the period of 16-30 Cueva. HR favor of the petitioner declaring illegal his separation from Manager Cueva went inside the office of VP for employment. private respondent’s Human Labor Arbiter.: there was no more need for the petitioner to explain since his This a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the drug test result revealed that he was positive for drugs.3 As such. supported by a copy of the copy of the Notice to Explain together with the copy of de pay voucher signed by petitioner. and only directed private respondent to pay . seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision. on 29 For its part. petitioner filed a complaint against hand. who even convinced petitioner to just voluntarily resign rights. Manila. the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision. Resource Manager. Dasmariñas.4 negative for any drug substance. The drug test result was already with the proper authorities at appellate court. J. as evidenced by a copy of the pay voucher November 2000. Petitioner’s accusation that he Petitioner alleged that he was asked to report at private was no longer allowed to enter the training site was further respondent’s main office in España.9 required to report at private respondent’s training site in On the following day. A copy not guilty of the drug use charge against him. he was no longer illegal dismissal and ordering the private respondent considered an employee of private respondent. petitioner was employed as a went back to private respondent’s training site in Dasmariñas. The Labor Arbiter. on 29 November belied by the fact that he was able to claim his 13th month 2000.11 In his Position Paper. of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.2 dated 7 September company’s president. VP for Administration Ty. Petitioner did not yet sign the resignation letter replying are as follows: that he needed time to think over the offers. filed by petitioner Federico petitioner. petitioner immediately went to St. Nita Azarcon (Azarcon). before the Labor Arbiter. allegedly banned therefrom according to the guard on duty. SP No. petitioner was served by HR Manager Cueva a pay thereat on 9 December 2000. de Leon filed a written report against no longer allowed to enter the training site for he was the petitioner addressed to private respondent’s Vice. When Revised Rules of Court. bus/service driver by the private respondent on probationary Cavite. All these Philippine National Training Institute (PNTI) to reinstate events transpired in the presence of VP for Administration petitioner to his former position without loss of seniority Ty. he was guard to enter the premises. served a copy of a Notice to petitioner never dismissed from employment but merely served a requiring him to explain within 24 hours why no disciplinary Notice to Explain why no disciplinary action should be filed action should be imposed on him for allegedly violating against him in view of his superior’s report that he was Section 14. HR Manager Cueva came petitioner’s reinstatement for the same was no longer out of the office with VP for Administration Ty. dismissing petitioner’s complaint for petitioner would resign willingly. Camp Crame. other facilities for personal ends. report to work after he was made to explain his alleged drug instead of verifying the veracity of de Leon’s report. 79724. but she would also later claim that the 2006. however. Jr. under the direct supervision of its site Dominic Medical Center for a drug test and he was found administrator. Pablo Manolo de Leon (de Leon). however. Instead of filing an answer Conduct. HR Manager Cueva told him that it was with the dated 28 May 2005.6 to the said notice. Cavite. he decided to of the complaint was duly received by private respondent’s continue to work for the private respondent. HR Manager Cueva took back the (NLRC-SECOND DIVISION) earlier Notice to Explain given to him and flatly declared that CHICO-NAZARIO. did not order Administration Ty. readily use. With his drug result on On 11 November 2000. bearing petitioner’s signature. asked for a copy of the said drug test Ledesma. In the same complaint. Petitioner then told VP for Administration Ty and HR petitioner also accused de Leon of immoral conduct allegedly Manager Cueva that since his drug test proved that he was carried out within the private respondent’s premises. Indeed. After he was On 26 July 2002. petitioner filed a complaint for illegal complaint for illegal dismissal against private respondent dismissal against private respondent before the Labor Arbiter. the latter retaliated by falsely accusing premises. Rather. however. petitioner reported for work but he was On 27 November 2000. of the National Labor Relations resignation letter and also remarked that whether or not Commission (NLRC). verbally dismissed petitioner from service on 29 November 2000. with the assurance that he would still be given separation The factual and procedural antecedents of the instant petition pay. President for Administration. and the Resolution.. petitioner went back to private respondent’s main de Leon for allegedly abusing his authority as site office in Manila to talk to VP for Administration Ty and HR administrator by using the private respondent’s vehicles and Manager Cueva and to show to them his drug test result. Ricky Ty (Ty). Trina Cueva (HR Manager Cueva).7 petitioner averred that in view of the Private respondent likewise denied petitioner’s allegations complaint he filed against de Leon for his abusive conduct as that it banned the latter from entering private respondent’s site administrator.13 in made to receive the copies of the said notice and report. illegal dismissal against the private respondent before the In view of de Leon’s report. and Resolution Petitioner was then asked by HR Manager Cueva to sign a dated 9 June 2003.5 On 2 December 2000. After a while. When petitioner On 4 December 1998. petitioner prematurely lodged a On 3 December 2000. however. To practical.R. to get his bicycle. There.

23 covered by such prohibition. therefore. it is best to stress respondent controverted the Labor Arbiter’s finding that that the issues raised by petitioner in this instant petition are petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment. premises considered. The decretal part of the NLRC Decision reads: including the evidence presented by the opposing parties to WHEREFORE. The dispositive portion of the Labor WHETHER. position without loss of seniority rights. Petitioner assailed the portion of the Labor COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN NOT Arbiter’s Decision denying his prayer for reinstatement.petitioner backwages. private Before we delve into the merits of this case.15 On the other hand.161âwphi1 examination of the evidence presented by the contending On 15 April 2003. which was denied by the Court of Appeals respondent from entering the workplace. the dismissal of the NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD [petitioner] is herein declared to be illegal. Appeals. The primordial issue in the petition at bar is whether the [Petitioner] is however. employment. and FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS SUBVERTED arguing that the doctrine of strained relations is applied only PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF THE to confidential employees and his position as a driver was not LAW. departure from the general rule is able to subsequently claim his salary and 13th month pay. the employee must first sufficiently respondent’s stance that petitioner was not dismissed from establish that he was indeed dismissed from employment. Fifty Three Centavos (₱184. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals found likewise denied by the NLRC in its Resolution dated 29 otherwise. hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. [Private SHOWING THAT THERE WAS NO JUST CAUSE FOR respondent] is directed to pay the complainant backwages DISMISSAL AS PETITIONER IS NOT A DRUG USER and separation pay in the total amount of One Hundred AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS Eighty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty One Pesos and GROUND FOR DISMISSAL. PETITIONER’S main office on 29 November 2000. by the NLRC and further rationated that petitioner’s positive WHETHER. 21 been true that petitioner was no longer allowed to enter the Hence. Petitioner’s THE ASSAILED DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY averments of what transpired inside private respondent’s THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. however. AND HAD THESE BEEN period of 16-30 November 2000 at private respondent’s CONSIDERED THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION training site. and insisting that he was illegally dismissed from . DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit. is now before this Court assailing the ARBITER’S DECISION FINDING ILLEGAL DISMISSAL Decisions handed down by the NLRC and the Court of II. it is quite a wonder he was able to do so the assailing the foregoing Court of Appeals Decision and very next day.25 dismissal for his claim that he was banned from entering the However. failed to establish the fact record and the attendant circumstances of the instant case. and his claim that he was UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCES ON RECORD. and another conformable with evidentiary facts. COURT OF APPEALS Arbiter’s Decision reads: SUBVERTED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN IT DID WHEREFORE. and burden of proof shifts to the employer to prove the validity of affirmed the NLRC Decision giving more credence to private the employee’s dismissal. 861. the NLRC granted the appeal raised by parties for the factual findings of the labor officials who have both parties and reversed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. and factual in nature which is not within the office of a Petition insisted that petitioner was never dismissed from his job but for Review. filed by petitioner December 2000. and are binding upon this Court. opining that had it in its Resolution issued on 7 September 2006. THE HON. in the present case.18 dismissed from employment warranting the payment of his The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner was backwages. The NLRC did not give credence to Similarly ill-fated was petitioner’s Motion for petitioner’s allegation that he was banned by the private Reconsideration. ordered REINSTATED to his former petitioner was illegally dismissed from employment.26 entered. the NLRC The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s Petition for underscored the settled evidentiary rule that before the Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. the decision under determine which findings should be preferred as more review is. Both parties questioned the Labor Arbiter’s Decision before WHETHER. COURT OF APPEALS allegations that he was dismissed from service was negated COMMITTED A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS. warranted. to claim his salary. this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari22 under training site when he reported for work thereat on 2 Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. but WITHOUT The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was illegally BACKWAGES. when the findings of the Labor Arbiter contradict training site was rendered impossible by the fact that he was those of the NLRC. COURT OF APPEALS the NLRC.20 of his dismissal. granted by infinitesimal scrunity and examine the records all over again the NLRC. WOULD BE THE AFFIRMATION OF THE LABOR Petitioner. premises considered.27 Resolution on the following grounds: The Court of Appeals validated the above conclusion reached I. August 2003.19 In reversing the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. this Court failed to report to work after he was asked to explain is not a trier of facts and does not routinely undertake the re- regarding his suspected drug use. when he was allegedly DISMISSAL WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE already dismissed from service. on 3 December 2000. THE HON.17 The acquired expertise in their own fields are accorded not only NLRC declared that petitioner failed to establish the fact of respect but even finality. and this Court must of necessity make an Petitioner’s claim for reinstatement was.24 The raison d’etre for this rule is that.14 III.53). effectively banned from private respondent’s premises are WHICH WERE MISAPPRECIATED BY PUBLIC belied by the fact that he was able to claim his salary for the RESPONDENT NLRC. THE HON. AND by substantial evidence to the contrary. as it is more in accord with the evidence on The petitioner.

34 this Court took the condone such an offer. VP for dismissal cases finds no application here because the Administration Ty offered him separation pay if he will just respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners. economic inequality between labor and management. 79724 are hereby AFFIRMED.31 Before the private respondent must bear case before judicial and quasi-administrative bodies. i. other than his own contentions that he was indeed earned salary for the period of 16-30 November 2000. The final decision.. uncorroborated and. neither can we construe that petitioner occasion to emphasize: was dismissed at that instance. 324 . in the case at bar. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 28 May 2005 course of business. ultimately competent evidence.SO ORDERED. however. allegation that respondents dismissed them from their Petitioner himself narrated that when his presence was employment. 2000. The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of serving allegations. Justitia nemini neganda that the payroll was merely fabricated for the purpose of est -. 1980 ] On these scores. It is therefore No.justice is to be denied to none.his employment. inconsistent proving it. self. relying on the strength of his own rests with the petitioner. it is in recognition of the inherent from the premises. he requested from VP for Administration Ty more opponent. it does not however. Again. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove requested on 29 November 2000 at the private respondent’s this fact must be clear.33 voluntarily resign from employment. In the present case. Petitioner argues that his receipt of his petitioner. positive and convincing. Inc. that the burden of given the option to either resign and receive his separation proof is on the part of the party who makes the allegations – pay or not to resign but face the possible disciplinary charges ei incumbit probatio. therefore. which are also incoherent. qui dicit. L-49280. Petitioner maintains that he illegal dismissal. establish a prima facie case that the petitioner was dismissed Well-entrenched is the principle that in order to establish a from employment. exploit or oppress the working class.30 Unfortunately. authorizes 9 December 2000.35 time to think over the offer. Costs against the incumbent upon the petitioner to adduce clear and convincing petitioner. Alusitain. It is true that the Constitution affords full protection to labor. Apr 30. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION fact of petitioner’s dismissal. SP Rule 130. and again on The law in protecting the rights of the employees. petitioner necessary that allegations must be supported by substantial must first establish by substantial evidence the fact of his evidence. CRISTOBAL v. and his dismissed by private respondent.29 thereof. We have scrupulously COMMISSION examined the records and we found no evidence presented by 186 Phil. the instant Petition is be given credence. thus.. The rule main office where he was served with the Notice to Explain that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal his superior’s report on his suspected drug use. to claim his 16-30 November 2000 salary. he must prove his claim by voluntarily resign or to continue working still. Logically. dismissal from service. 13th month pay. However.36 supporting private respondent’s case before the NLRC cannot WHEREFORE. petitioner admitted in his Supplemental Affidavit mean that we are bound to uphold the working class in every that he was able to return to the said site on 3 December labor dispute brought before this Court for our resolution. if there is no dismissal. is neither inconsistent with nor a negation of While this Court is not unmindful of the rule that in cases of his allegation of illegal dismissal. Roosevelt Services Center. to receive his 13th month pay. there is a dearth of evidence to establish the LUZ G. Entries in the payroll. While we do not In Rufina Patis Factory v.R. to put the two parties respondent was further weakened with the presentation of on relatively equal positions. we must be enter the training site by the guard on duty who told him that vigilant in striking down any attempt of the management to he was already banned from the premises. Subsequently. petitioners were burdened to prove their and contradictory. to wit: by no other than his own bare. evidence in support of his claim of fabrication and to overcome such presumption of regularity. thus. It alone that he was able to return to the training site to claim should be made clear that when the law tilts the scales of his salary and benefits raises doubt as to his purported ban justice in favor of labor. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality accept as adequate to support a conclusion. however. for prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause he was already banned from the work premises. whether to right granted by law.32 we had as to meet the quantum of evidence required. the facts and the evidence did not We are not persuaded. If he claims a against him. it is the burden of proving that the dismissal was legal. premises considered. The Finally. Petitioner’s claim of illegal dismissal is supported upon the party alleging. substantial underscored that the burden of proving the allegations rest evidence. petitioner’s assertion result is an injustice to the employer. petitioner’s stance that he was dismissed by private intent is to balance the scales of justice. by petitoner’s own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his admission. Petitioner was only being It is a basic rule in evidence. Section 43 of the Rules of Court. there is hardly any evidence on record so In Machica v. In fact. non qui negat. petitioner again failed in such endeavor. the petitioner alleged that he was not allowed to and that in light of this Constitutional mandate. [ GR No.e.28 Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. There may be cases where the private respondent’s payroll bearing petitioner’s name circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of proving that petitioner remained as private respondent’s management but never should the scale be so tilted if the employee up to December 2000. Moreover. being entries in the DENIED. the employer bears the burden of proof to received his salary and benefit only from the guardhouse. The fact neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. enjoy the presumption of regularity under and its Resolution dated 7 September 2006 in CA-G.

In the case of Eliseo vs. Workmen's Compensation Hence. failed to appreciate the evidence submitted by the above. he succumbed to his performs his job in the Bureau. It also allows certain diseases to be Petition).). Fortunato S. Taguig. Handling of chemicals for printing. In denying the claim. A second operation became suffering from a rectal illness and he had been complaining to necessary because of the recurrence of malignancy in the me that said illness became more painful whenever he pelvis. 1975.MAKASIAR.] and Dr. if not caused. to the Taguig. there has not been any Willie Lagdameo of the Hospital of Infant Jesus [p. filed with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS for short). 1976 when he was brought to the Hospital of Infant Jesus of Printing. who as ano-rectal cancer which caused his death. he was again confined at the UST aforementioned Bureau of Printing even when he was already Hospital for the same ailment. the records. This is provided under Sec. "I also noticed that he oftentimes eat food in the Bureau The petitioner herein. Despite earnest medical efforts. the claimant must be able to may be attributed to the inadequate facilities in the Bureau of show at least by substantial evidence that the development of Printing" (Annex D. Board.: Petition for review on certiorari of the June 21. as the decedent's widow and without washing his hands.). Guzman stating that "the illness may working conditions attendant to the deceased's be aggravated by the unhygienic conditions in the Bureau of employment. Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 6. not being listed as an occupational disease. On the basis. 17. from the nature thereof" (GSIS letter dated February 20. Likewise.]) sufficiently establish that the risk of contracting denying the request of petitioner for reconsideration). Mercia C. the listed "Fortunato Cristobal always handle chemicals in the Bureau occupational diseases are compensable when the conditions of Printing while in the performance of his duties" (Annex C. of one Angel Peres. the respondents decision of the Employees' Compensation Commission filed herein failed to consider these outstanding facts patent from by petitioner in forma pauperis. it appears that you have merely relied on the fact that the certification issued by the not established that the deceased's employment has any direct physician of the deceased failed to indicate the actual causes causal relationship with the contraction of the ailment. Rufo A. ECC showing that the same directly arose therefrom or resulted rec. its own medical officer [p. This fact was corroborated by the affidavit Development Board (NSDB for short) based in Bicutan. as amended. however. as Supervising Officer II of the NSDB. The said Bureau of Printing is very unhygienic and polluted with claim was denied by the GSIS and in a subsequent request for chemicals and he oftentimes complain to me that the odor of reconsideration. 1976. plus neglected personal necessity which degree of proof is concerned. 1964 (p. His original appointment was dated February effect that - 26. of the papers and evidence on petitioner to substantiate her claim. While or factors which led to the decedent's rectal malignancy. compensable whenever the claimant is able to prove that the These statements find relevance in the medical certificate risks of contracting such diseases were increased by the issued by Dr. eating without proper washing of hands. Rizal. Willie Lagdameo. excrement was marked with fresh blood. 626. beneficiary. 1978 9. it will be noted that the ailment which resulted in government free from any kind of disease. Abrenica. the course of his employment with the NSDB. tension due to the 626 which took effect on January 1. Information Officer II in the National Science Development Rufo A. was actually assigned to the Printing Department of The deceased. rec. a claim for income (death) benefits "The place where Fortunato Cristobal was assigned in the under Presidential Decree No. 16. On May 28. This it is admitted that the aforementioned ailment supervened in Court. 1977 (p. decision of the GSIS. 1(b) Rule III of the Printing where he works. he was discharged with improved conditions but just "Fortunato Cristobal continued working at the one year thereafter. Guzman (in relation to the medical findings of Dr. he contracted sickness which was later diagnosed and was there treated by Dr. ECC rec. this petition. J. Commission (84 SCRA 188). it record which you have submitted. required such degree of proof as mentioned however. a co-employee of the deceased. therefore. The deceased. ECC rec. the System reiterated its decision stating that the chemicals make him feel dizzy always. Rizal. On April 8. Cristobal. set therein are satisfied. As far as the pressure of work. Petition). - "Under the present law on compensation. 1976. by the working The petitioner appealed to the ECC. this Court held: . the ailment was brought largely by the working conditions present in the nature of employment. is of the opinion that the affidavit of Angel the course of the deceased's employment as Supervising Peres substantiated by the medical certificate issued by Dr. 1978 In resolving the issue of compensability. illness on May 27. the disease is increased. diagnosed his illness as rectal malignancy. Self-administered medications were made but symptoms persisted until April "During the employment of Fortunato Cristobal at the Bureau 22. The ECC. This admitted that the deceased husband's ailment supervened in ailment. Bicutan. it is his death on May 27. 1977 was Rectal Malignancy. however. In the case of your Undisputed is the fact that the deceased entered the husband. was employed as the said agency where he was exposed to various chemicals Supervising Information Officer II of the National Science and intense heat. which affirmed the conditions prevailing in the respondent's (NSDB) premises. he developed "I know personally Fortunato Cristobal because he was my loose bowel movement which later worsened and his Supervisor in the Bureau of Printing.

75 SCRA 371 leukemia which caused the death of Isabel Eliseo has a causal [1977]). like the labor. it is palpable that the State. thereby affording a greater number of requires a reasonable work-connection" (pp. GSIS. Likewise. is the touchstone. 626. pitch. the Social Security System and the 17. as it is duty bound to. 79 SCRA 281. bitumen. It may be true that the job of a reviser As pointed out by no less than the respondent ECC itself in or quality controller. has adequately satisfied the second part The use of handling of." these substances This Court is convinced that the petitioner. plastic workers. 626 provides - "For sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable. the policy New Labor Code. Workmen's Compensation Commission. the social justice the respondent Workmen's Compensation Commission that guarantee. Therefore. Employees' 16. the institution of employees in pulp and paper mills and plywood mills. more specially. loggers and dated March 16. for otherwise. as amended. 626. a more compassionate interpretation of the restrictive provisions of Presidential Decree No. 59-60. or residue of any of these substances ECC Case No. 1977." napthylamine or benzidine or any part of the salts. by its administering agencies. This comes any defect or flaw in a garment being revised and to point out about after continuing studies made by the ECC. et al. is under obligation at all times to malignancy would not be consistent with this liberal . among others. this Court stated that - "x x x the respondent Commission. Government Service Insurance System. ECC."We cannot agree with the private respondent that the claim give meaning and substance to the constitutional guarantees of the petitioner is without any factual or legal basis nor with in favor of the working man. Cancer of the epithelial lining of the bladder (Papilloma of in testing the evidence or the relation between the injury or the bladder) disease and the employment. proof corneal surface of the eye due to tar. 73 SCRA 84.. cases.. Furthermore. the sickness must be the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex 'A' of these Rules 2. as a policy. It may also be true "It may not be amiss to mention that the ECC has time and that all that is required is alertness of the eye to see and detect again expanded the list of occupational diseases. We held that 1. 1978). 223 Woodworkers. wood products industry carpenters. and Section 1(b). pitch. Cancer of the stomach and other lymphatic and blood- Compensation Commission (84 SCRA 771 [August 25. adopted. Myocardial Infarction and other borderline Vinyl chloride workers. nasal cavity and sinuses. following the theory of mineral oil (include paraffin) soot or any compound product increased risk as laid down in the case of Amparo vs. In Laron vs. it is clear that the purpose no known etiology. 84 SCRA 762 (August 25. mineral must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is oil or paraffin or any compound product or residue of any of increased by the working conditions.D. 1978 - Eliseo. otherwise. forming vessels.D. they are regarded as of the resolution is to extend the applicability of the occupational. Cancer epithellomatons or ulceration of the skin or of the with the conditions set therein satisfied. Yet. rec. The clear implication is that the law merely provisions of P. employees the opportunity to avail of the benefits under the italics supplied). beta- WCC. tar. 1978]). to give maximum aid and protection to of the State to afford maximum aid and protection to labor. 1976) and reiterated in xx xxxx xx Corales vs. liver and brain. Rule III of the Implementing Rules and auramine or magenta. it is evident that rectal cancer is one of "Worth nothing is the fact that the above types of cancer have those borderline cases. which was the work of claimant Isabel its Comment dated January 5. However. with respect to. by clear and convincing evidence. probability and not certainty. under Resolution No. The Employees' Compensation Commission. these guarantees would be merely there is no evidence substantial enough to show that this "a lot of meaningless patter" (Santos vs. bitumen. vs. to require the petitioner to show the actual defunct Court of Industrial Relations and the Workmen's causes or factors which led to the decedent's rectal Compensation Commission. in the case of Sepulveda vs. x x x" In the instant case. as mandated by the Constitution and embodied in the respondent ECC recognizes. Cancer of the lungs. does not entail physical exertion. of the aforequoted provision. reiterated in National Housing Corp. regulations of P. it must be admitted disease in certain cases -- that the nature of the work of the claimant required her to deal with textiles or fabrics which involved chemicals of Occupational Disease various kinds and composition and this exposure of the π deceased to these chemicals in private respondent's Nature of Employment establishment probably led to the development of the disease of leukemia or at least aggravated the illness of the claimant from which she died as a result. 0046 (August 18. relation to the nature of her work with the respondent G & S Manufacturing Corp. law. exposure to. those defects for correction or repair before a garment can cancer has already been included as a qualified occupational pass for distribution and use. Indeed. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of the From the foregoing statements. Work involving exposure to alphanapthylamine. WCC.

GSIS has trodden the grounds on an unsure foot. 11. is unknown. "Evidently. SURGICAL AND HOSPITAL EXPENSES DULY SUPPORTED BY PROPER RECEIPTS.00) PESOS AS FUNERAL EXPENSES. WHEREFORE. Why is it then that petitioner must be required to prove causation .that her husband's cancer was caused by his employment . It would seem to insinuate that petitioner must blame science for having not yet discovered the actual cause of her husband's fatal illness. GSIS Comment)." WE give due consideration to the respondent's application of P.interpretation. As persuasively pointed out by the petitioner in her memorandum addressed to this Court dated April 6.00) PESOS AS DEATH BENEFITS. so to speak. x x x "x x x x. SO ORDERED. It is in this regard that the evidence submitted by the petitioner deserves serious consideration. 626 in ruling on the claim since petitioner's husband died on May 27.000. Moreover. 'It is unfortunate that despite the relatively fast pace in the march of progress. THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE RESPONDENT GSIS IS HEREBY DIRECTED 1 TO PAY THE PETITIONER THE SUM OF TWELVE THOUSAND (P12. From the above discussion. 2 3 TO REIMBURSE PETITIONER MEDICAL. it is undeniable that the petitioner is entitled to her claim. medical records did not disclose the date when the deceased employee actually contracted the disease. science to this day has not given us the cause of cancer' (p. AND 6 7 TO PAY THE PETITIONER ATTORNEY'S FEES EQUIVALENT TO TEN (10%) PERCENT OF THE DEATH BENEFITS. after the effectivity of the provisions of the New Labor Code on Employees' Compensation. 1979 - "x x x x "The respondent GSIS said. 4 5 TO PAY PETITIONER THE SUM OF SEVEN HUNDRED (P700.if science itself is ignorant of the cause of cancer? x x x. It is of universal acceptance that practically all kinds of cancer belong to the class of clinical diseases whose exact etiology. 1977. . rectal malignancy having been discovered only on April 22.D. 1976 when the deceased sought hospital confinement. cause or origin. Hence medical scientists are still venturing into the unknown.