You are on page 1of 10

Case #1 the Union members and officers were deemed to have lost their


(G.R. No. 156635;11 January 2016) ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed?

FACTS: Petitioner Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation HELD: Yes. As a general rule, the mere finding of the illegality
Employees Union (Union) was the duly recognized collective of the strike does not justify the termination of the strikers from
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of respondent their employment. To avoid rendering the recognition of the
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). HSBC workers' right to strike illusory, the responsibility for the illegal
announced its implementation of a Job Evaluation Program strike is individual instead of collective. The last paragraph of
(JEP) which consisted of a job designation per grade level with Article 264(a) of the Labor Code defines the norm for
the accompanying salary scale providing for the minimum and terminating the workers participating in an illegal strike: Any
maximum pay the employee could receive per salary level. The union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and
Union demanded the suspension of the JEP, which it labeled as any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
an unfair labor practice (ULP) and subsequently informed HSBC commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to
that it would exercise its right to concerted action. The Union have lost his employment status.
members started picketing during break time which persisted for
11 months, notwithstanding that both sides had meanwhile In conform with the said provision, the officers may be deemed
started the re-negotiation of the economic provisions of their terminated from their employment upon a finding of their
CBA. The continued concerted actions impelled HSBC to knowing participation in the illegal strike, but the members of the
suspend the negotiations. union shall suffer the same fate only if they are shown to have
knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts during
The Union's officers and members walked out and gathered the strike. Article 264 expressly requires that the officer must
outside the premises of HSBC's offices which blocked the entry have "knowingly participated" in the illegal strike.
and exit points of the bank premises, preventing the bank
officers from entering and/or leaving the premises.

HSBC filed its complaint to declare the strike illegal. In the

meantime, HSBC issued return-to-work notices to the striking
gemployees; however, only 25 employees complied and
returned to work. Due to the continuing concerted actions,
HSBC terminated the individual petitioners.

The Labor Arbiter declared thestrike illegal for failure of the

Union to file the notice of strike with the DOLE; to observe the
cooling-off period; and to submit the results of the strike vote to
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board pursuant to the
Labor Code and concluded that due to the illegality of the strike
Case #2 Case #3
(G.R. No. 208986; 13 January 2016) UNION
(GR No. 201595; 25 January 2016)
FACTS: "Nagkakaisang Mamumuo ng Bit, Djevon, at Raquilla
Farms sa Hijo Resources Corporation" (Union), asserted that FACTS:Allan Mendoza was a member of the Manila Water
they were absorbed by Hijo Resources Corporation (HRC) while Employees Union (MWEU), a DOLE-registered labor
working under the contractor-growers. The Union filed a petition organization consisting of rank-and-file employees within Manila
for certification election before the DOLE. However, when HRC Water Company (MWC).
learned that complainants formed a union, the three contractor-
growers filed with the DOLE a notice of cessation of business MWEU informed Mendoza that the union was unable to fully
operations. Thereafter, complainants were terminated from their deduct the increased union dues from his salary due to lack of
employment on the ground of cessation of business operations the required check-off authorization from the latter. Mendoza
by the contractor-growers of HRC. was warned that non-payment of union dues would be subject
for sanction. He was then suspended for 30 days for non-
The DOLE Med-Arbiter issued an Order dismissing payment three (3) times. He did not attend the scheduled
NAMABDJERA-HRC's petition for certication election on the hearing and was meted the penalty of expulsion from the union,
ground that there was no employer-employee relationship per unanimous approval of the members of the Executive
between complainants. However, the Court of Appeals Board.
concluded that the decision in a certification election case does
not foreclose further dispute as to the existence or non- Mendoza filed a petition against Officers of MWEU for unfair
existence of an employer-employee relationship between HRC labor practice under the labor code.
and the complainants.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of Unfair Labor
ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the Practice?
NLRC ruling and remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter for
further proceedings? HELD: Yes, Officers of MWEU are guilty of Unfair Labor
HELD: No. The Court cited the ruling in the Manila Golf case
that the decision in a certification election case, by the very Unfair labor practice for a labor organization is any act which
nature of that proceeding, does not foreclose all further dispute ‘restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to
between the parties as to the existence or non-existence of an self-organization. The right of self-organization includes the right
employer employee relationship between them. To dismiss the to organize or affiliate with a labor union or determine which of
illegal dismissal case filed before the labor arbiter on the basis two or more unions in an establishment to join, and to engage in
of the pronouncement of the MedArbiter, which the respondent concerted activities with co-workers for purposes of collective
union could not even appeal to the DOLE Secretary because of bargaining through representatives of their own choosing, or for
the dismissal of its members, would be tantamount to denying their mutual aid and protection, i.e., the protection, promotion, or
due process to the complainants in the illegal dismissal case. enhancement of their rights and interests.
This, we cannot allow.
Case #4 represent their members in any proceedings before the DAR. It
SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO must be pointed out, however, that the law should be
NASWE, INC. (SAMMANA)vs. TAN harmonized with the interest requirement in bringing actions and
(G.R. No. 196028;18 April 2016) suits." In other words, while organizations and associations may
represent their members before the DAR, these members must
FACTS: Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng Sitio have such real, actual; material, or substantial interest in the
Naswe, Inc. (SAMMANA)is an association of farmers and subject matter of the action, NOT merely' an expectancy, or a
fishermen residing at Sitio Talaga, Barangay Ipag, Mariveles, future contingent interest.
Bataan for several years doing farming activities" from which
they "derive their income for their daily sustenance." The SAMMANA failed to allege and prove that these members
are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of the
The PCGG published in the newspaper an Invitation to Bid for subject land, or have already been actually awarded portions of
the sale of its assets, including the land occupied by the farmer- it, or have been issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award
members of SAMMANA. Tomas Tan emerged as the highest (CLOAs) for which they could validly claim the status of the
bidder in the bidding of the property. land's grantees having a real, actual, material interest to
question the July 26, 2000 Order of the DAR Secretary lifting
The Chairman of the PCGG Committee wrote the Department of the Notice of Coverage. Not being identified and duly registered
Agrarian Reform (DAR) requesting to stop the acquisition of the qualified beneficiaries, these members' interest over the subject
property under the CARP as it appeared that, a Notice of land were at most an expectancy that, unfortunately for them,
Coverage had been issued and that the land sold by the PCGG did not ripen to actual award and ownership.
to Tan had been already identified for CARP coverage.

SAMMANA filed with DAR a Petition to grant the land to the

farmers but the DAR denied the petition based on the ground
that the subject property, being government-owned, does not
fall as 'private agricultural land' subject to the CARP.

ISSUE:Whether or not SAMMANA is a real party in interest?

HELD: No, SAMMANA is not a real party-in-interest to question

the DAR Order; the Constitutional right to form associations
does not make the petitioner a real party-in-interest in this case.
Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules of Court, every
action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real

RA No. 6657 in relation with Section 3 of the Rules of Court

expressly allows farmers, farmworkers, tillers, cultivators, etc.,
organizations and associations, 'through their leaders, to
Case #5: Case #6
APPEALS (GR Nos. 208896-97; 6 April 2016)
(G.R. No. 191699; 19 April 2016)
FACTS: Ricasata was hired as an engine fitter for M.V. Uni
Chart, a ship owned by Evergreen Marine Corporation, Ltd. of
FACTS:Union members were workers of William Go Que Taiwan, represented by its local manning agency, Cargo
Construction were hired as steel men on various dates, and Safeway, Inc. The deployment was for a period of nine months.
were regular employees of the Company until their dismissal on His work included handling noisy equipment such as grinders,
June 2006. As to the employer, they were hired as project generators, and pumps in the vessel's engine room on a regular
employees, and were informed of the specific period or phase of eight to five shift schedule.
construction wherein their services were needed. Later on, the
employer learned that some workers were getting excess and Two incidents occurred wherein Ricasata experienced severe
cutting unused steel bars, and selling them to junk shops, pain in his ears. He requested for medical check-up but such
prompting him to announce that he will bring the matter to the was denied. Having been replaced by a reliever, Ricasata
proper authorities. Thereafter, the workers no longer reported returned to the Philippines, underwent an audiogram and was
for work, and were identified by the other workers as the diagnosed with “Permanent Medical Unfitness with a Disability
thieves. Grade 1” due to a “profound hearing loss”

Meanwhile, the employer filed a complaint for theft against the Ricasata filed an action against Cargo Safeway and Evergreen
workers. On the other hand, the workers filed a case for illegal Marine claiming disability benefits for loss of hearing was due to
dismissal against the Construction Company and for his work in a noisy environment. As such, his illness is
nonpayment of their monetary benefits. compensable under the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration-Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) but
ISSUE:Whether or not the workers of the William Go Que the latter moved for dismissalon the ground that Ricasata's
Construction were illegally dismissed for non-payment of their employment was covered by a CBA between the Associated
monetary benefits? Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union of the Philippines and the
National Chinese Seamen's Union.
HELD:No, the workers of the William Go Que Construction were
not illegally dismissed. The workers were validly dismissed as Respondents, on the other hand, countered that Ricasata is not
they stole from the construction company. The prosecutor found entitled to the benefits claimed because (1) he did not suffer any
probable cause for theft against the workers and that the latter illness, accident, or injury while on board the vessel; (2) he was
abandoned their employment after they were identified by their repatriated to the Philippines because of the expiration of his
former co-workers as the thieves. However, considering the contract; and (3) he did not report any illness, injury, or accident
Company’s failure to accord them procedural due process, the upon his arrival in the Philippines, and he did not request for
court held that the workers are entitled for nominal damages but referral to a company-designated physician.
not the monetary benefits given as separation pay for dismissed
employees/workers. ISSUE: Whether or not Ricasata is entitled to disability benefits?
HELD: No. It is a settled rule that for a seaman's disability claim Case #7
to prosper, it is mandatory that within three days from ROBINA FARMS CEBU vs. VILLA
repatriation, he is examined by a company-designated (GR No. 175869; 18 April 2016)
physician. His failure to do so will result to the forfeiture of his
right to claim for compensation and disability benefits. The FACTS: Villa averred that she had been employed by Robina
Audiogram, taken six days after his arrival, did not indicate that Farms as sales clerk and then applied to the offer of the
it was taken by a company-designated physician. It did not company’s special retirement program. Villa then received a
indicate that it came from Seamen's Hospital. It was not signed, memorandum from Lily Ngochua requiring her to explain her
and it did not contain an interpretation of the graph. It was failure to issue invoices for unhatched eggs in the months of
simply a printout from the audiometer. The private physician, January to February 2002. She explained that the delivery
who issued a medical certificate diagnosing Ricasata with receipts were delayed and overlooked, thus, the invoices were
severe hearing loss, was not a company-designated physician. not delivered on time. Despite explanation, Villa had been
suspended for 10 days. Upon reporting back to work, she was
advised to cease working because her application for retirement
had already been approved. Later on, she was informed that her
application had been disapproved, and had been advised to
tender her resignation with a request for financial assistance.
She prevented from returning to work, confiscated her gate pass
and had been replaced by another employee.

ISSUE: Whether retirement was voluntary or involuntary?

HELD: Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of both the

employer and the employee based on their voluntary agreement
that upon reaching a certain age, the employee agrees to sever
his employment. On one hand, voluntary retirement cuts the
employment ties leaving no residual employer liability; on the
other, involuntary retirement amounts to a discharge, rendering
the employer liable for termination without cause. The
employee’s intent is decisive. In determining such intent, the
relevant parameters to consider are the fairness of the process
governing the retirement decision, the payment of stipulated
benefits, and the absence of badges of intimidation or coercion.

In case of early retirement programs, the offer of benefits must

be certain while the acceptance to be retired should be
absolute. The acceptance by the employees contemplated
herein must be explicit, voluntary, free and uncompelled.
Case #8 the employee to continue with his employment. The law
DIVINE WORLD COLLEGE OF LAOAG vs. MINA recognizes and resolves this situation in favor of employees in
(GR NO. 195155; 13 APRIL 2016) order to protect their rights and interests from the coercive acts
of the employer. In this case, Mina’s transfer clearly amounted
FACTS: Divine Word College of Laoag (DWCL) is a non-stock to a constructive dismissal. He was divested of his teaching
educational institution offering Catholic education to the public. load. His appointment even became contractual in nature and
It is run by the Society of Divine Word (SVD), a congregation of was subject to automatic termination after one year “without any
Catholic priests. DWCL first employed Delfin A. Mina as a high further notification.” Aside from this, Mina was the only one
school teacher, and later on a high school principal at the among the high school teachers transferred to the college
Academy of St. Joseph (ASJ), a school run by the SVD. Mina department who was divested of teaching load. More
transferred back to DWCL and was accorded a permanent importantly, DWCL failed to show any reason for Mina’s transfer
status. Mina was transferred to DWCL’s College Department as and that it was not unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to
an Associate Professor III. He was assigned as the College him.
Laboratory Custodian of the School of Nursing and was
divested of his teaching load subject to automatic termination There is demotion when an employee occupying a highly
without need for any further notification. He was the only one technical position requiring the use of one’s mental faculty is
among several teachers transferred to the College Department transferred to another position, where the employee performed
who was divested of teaching load. Mina was offered early mere mechanical work – virtually a transfer from a position of
retirement by DWCL. He initially declined the offer. He later dignity to a servile or menial job. The assessment whether
received a memorandum from the office of DWCL’s Dean Mina’s transfer amounted to a demotion must be done in
enumerating specific acts of gross or habitual negligence, relation to his previous position, that is, from an associate
insubordination and reporting for work under the influence of college professor, he was made a keeper and inventory-taker of
alcohol. Sensing that it was pointless to continue employment laboratory materials. Clearly, Mina’s new duties as laboratory
with DWCL, he requested that his retirement date be adjusted to custodian were merely perfunctory and a far cry from his
avail of better benefit which was denied. It was made to appear previous teaching job, which involved the use of his mental
that his services were terminated by reason of redundancy to faculties. And while there was no proof adduced showing that
avoid any tax implications. He was also made to sign a deed of his salaries and benefits were diminished, there was clearly a
waiver and quitclaim. demotion in rank.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mina can file a case for illegal dismissal
and recovery of separation pay and other money claims?

HELD: Yes. Constructive dismissal is a dismissal in disguise.

There is cessation of work in constructive dismissal because
“continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution
in pay’ and other benefits.” To be considered as such, an act
must be a display of utter discrimination or insensibility on the
part of the employer so intense that it becomes unbearable for
CASE #9 Case #10
(GR NO. 194119; 13 APRIL 2016) (GR NO 192488; 19 APRIL 2016)

FACTS: Martinez Memorial Colleges, Inc. (MMC) is a private FACTS: Blue Eagle Management, Inc. (BEMI) and Ateneo De
educational institution. Mariano was MMC's Assistant Cashier Manila University (ADMU) entered into a contract whereby
and had been in service for 32 years. Part of her job was to BEMI was to manage and operate ADMU’s Sports Center, and
accept payments and issue receipts and deposit slips to MMC that the profits or losses from operation would be for the
students. Mariano went on a one-month authorized leave of account of the former. BEMI employed Jocelyn L. Naval as one
absence. When the she reported back to work, she received a of the maintenance staffs in the gymnasium.
Memorandum stating that in line with the streamlining activities
of MMC, Mariano would be transferred from the Cashier's Office According to the BEMI, Naval and four others, who have been
to the Office of the Vice-President (OVP) for Finance, her selected on the basis of their length of stay in the company
husband's office. Mariano alleged that the copies of the said being the shortest, would have to be retrenched because of the
memorandum had already been distributed to all concerned substantial loss suffered by the former. Naval et al. has been
immediately after the respondents signed it while she and her offered separation package, if they would instead resign
husband were still on vacation. Mariano went to MMC to file voluntarily. Thus, they resigned voluntarily, and in exchange,
another application for leave as she was not feeling well but this they received such separation package from petitioner.
was denied by the Human Resources. When her leave form
was returned, there was a note which reads: "Extension Naval, however, testified that she has been illegally dismissed
disapproved until further notice due to on-going audit." The as a result of an incident where she had been reported by a
Audit Report showed the Mariano improperly handled the cash customer in the gymnasium as being remiss of her duties.
accounts of MMC. The non-essential accounts contained the Thus, petitioner forced her to write a resignation letter in her
total amount of over 40 Million. Mariano was then dismissed. own handwriting upon the dictation of the BEMI’s HR Manager.
She filed a Complaint for constructive dismissal against MMC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Naval was illegal?
ISSUE: Whether or not Mariano's dismissal from employment
was illegal? HELD: No, the dismissal was not illegal. No fraud or deception
was employed upon Naval to resign because BEMI was indeed
HELD: Yes the dismissal of the Mariano was illegal. Mariano’s about to implement in good faith a retrenchment of its
dismissal is illegal for failure of MMC to prove lawful or just employees in order to advance its interest and not merely to
cause for the termination of her employment and for their failure defeat or circumvent the former's right to security of tenure.
to accord her due process. The System Review Report
prepared provided sufficient grounds for MMC to terminate the Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a
petitioner from employment for serious or gross dishonesty. situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be
However, despite such, the employee shall still have the right to sacrificed for the favor of employment, and opts to leave rather
due process. than stay employed. It is a formal pronouncement or
relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the
office accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the intent to
relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the Case #11
acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation COCOPLANS, INC. vs. VILLAPANDO
must be considered in determining whether, he or she, in fact, (GR No. 183129; 30 May 2016)
intended to sever his or her employment.
FACTS: Ma. Socorro R. Villapando, began working as a
As borne out by the Financial Statements of BEMI, there was Financial Advisor for Cocoplans, Inc. She was eventually
ground for the company to implement a retrenchment of its promoted to Division Head/Senior Sales Manager. However, her
employees at the time respondent resigned. Retrenchment is employment was terminated on the alleged ground that she was
one of the authorized causes for termination of employment deliberately influencing people to transfer to another company
which the law accords an employer who is not making good in thereby breaching the trust and losing the confidence given to
its operations in order to cut back on expenses for salaries and her by Cocoplans. Consequently, Villapando filed an action for
wages by laying off some employees. The purpose of illegal dismissal alleging that she was dismissed without the just
retrenchment is to save a financially ailing business cause mandated by law and for non accordance of due process.
establishment from eventually collapsing.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent was illegally terminated?

HELD: To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two

requisites must concur: (a) the employee must be afforded due
process; and (b) the dismissal must be for a valid. Cocoplans
duly afforded Villapando the opportunity to be heard and defend
herself, thereby complying with the first requisite.

Loss of trust and confidence must be based on a wilful breach

of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is
wilful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without
justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on
substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness,
whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would
eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Loss of
confidence must not also be indiscriminately used as a shield by
the employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee
was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a just cause for
dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and show
that the employee concerned is unfit to continue working for the
employer. In the instant case, there is no finding of evidence to
be substantial enough to discharge the burden of proving that
Villapando was, indeed, dismissed for just cause.
Case #12 OWNER’S (PAL) rules, regulations, procedures and
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. LIGAN directives relative to the safety and security of OWNER’S
(GR No. 203932; 8 June 2016) premises, properties and operations (2) xxx shall furnish its
employees and workers identification cards to be countersigned
FACTS: Philippine Airlines and Synergy Services Corporation by OWNER and uniforms to be approved by OWNER. (3)
as Contractor, entered into an Agreement whereby Synergy OWNER may require CONTRACTOR to dismiss immediately
undertook to provide loading and delivery services by furnishing and prohibit entry into OWNER’S premises of any person
all the necessary capital, workers, materials, supplies and employed therein by CONTRACTOR who in OWNER’S opinion
equipment for the performance and execution of said work. is incompetent or misconducts himself or does not comply with
Respondents, who appear to have been assigned to work for OWNER’S reasonable instructions xxx PAL in fact admitted that
PAL filed complaints before the NLRC for the payment of their it fixes the work schedule of respondents as their work was
labor standard benefits and regularization of employment status dependent on the frequency of plane arrivals. And as the NLRC
claiming that they are performing duties directly connected with found, PAL’s managers and supervisors approved respondents’
PAL’s business. weekly work assignments and respondents and other regular
PAL employees were all referred to as “station attendants” of
ISSUE: Whether or not there is labor-only contracting? the cargo operation and airfreight services of PAL.

HELD: YES. For labor-only contracting to exist, Section 5 of Respondents having performed tasks which are usually
D.O. No. 18-02 which requires any of two elements to be necessary and desirable in the air transportation business of
present: (i) The contractor or subcontractor does not PAL, they should be deemed its regular employees and
have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, Synergy as a labor-only contractor.
work or service to be performed and the employees recruited,
supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are
performing activities which are directly related to the main
business of the principal; or, (ii) The contractor does not
exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of
the contractual employee.

From the records of the case, it is gathered that the work

performed by almost all of the respondents – loading and
unloading of baggage and cargo of passengers – is directly
related to the main business of PAL. And the equipment used
by respondents as station loaders, such as trailers and
conveyors, are owned by PAL.

PAL, and not Synergy, exercises control and supervision over

the respondent workers’ methods of doing the work, as reflected
in their Agreement: (1) Contractor (Synergy) shall require all its
workers, employees, suppliers and visitors to comply with
Case #13 enough justification to disregard the separate corporate
MALIXI vs. MEXICALI PHILIPPINES personalities. To pierce the veil of corporate action, there should
(GR NO. 205061; 8 June 2016) be clear and convincing proof that fraud, illegality or inequity has
been committed against third persons.
FACTS: Emerita Malixi filed an illegal dismissal case against
Mexicali and its General Manager. Malixi alleged that she was
hired by Mexicali as a team leader assigned at the delivery
service. Mexicali's training officer, Jay Teves, informed her of
the management's intention to transfer and appoint her as store
manager at a newly opened branch, which is a joint venture
between Mexicali and Calexico Food Corporation. She then
subsequently submitted a resignation letter as advised by
Teves. Thereafter, she started working as the store manager of
Mexicali although, however, she was compelled by Teves to
sign an end-of-contract letter by reason of a criminal complaint
for sexual harassment she filed against Mexicali's operations
manager. Upon her vehement refusal to sign, she was informed
by Luna that it was her last day of work. Mexicali, however,
denied responsibility over Maxili's alleged dismissal. They
averred that Maxili has resigned from Mexicali, hence, she was
no longer Mexicali's employee at the time of her dismissal but
rather an employee of Calexico, a franchisee of Mexicali which
is a separate and distinct corporation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Malixi is Mexicali's employee at the time

of her dismissal?

RULING: No. Upon Malixi's resignation, she ceased to be an

employee of Mexicali and chose to be employed at Calexico. It
is basic that "a corporation is an artificial being invested with a
personality separate and distinct from those of the stockholders
and from other corporations to which it may be connected or
related." The Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of both
corporations show that they have distinct business locations and
distinct business purposes. It can also be gleaned therein that
they have a different set of incorporators or directors since only
two out of the have directors of Mexicali are also directors of
Calexico. At any rate, the Court has ruled that the existence of
interlocking directors, corporate officers and shareholders is not