Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2018 v2 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES NOTES FOR PALS PDF
2018 v2 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES NOTES FOR PALS PDF
A. GENERAL CONCEPTS
1. Employer-Employee relationship
• Of these four tests however, the most important test is the element of
control, which has been defined as [MEMORIZE THIS] “one where the
employer has reserved the right to control not only the work to be
achieved, but the manner and method by which such work is to be
achieved.”. (LVN Pictures vs. LVN Musician’s Guild, 1 SCRA 132).
• Important DEL CASTILLO cases on the four-fold test and the power of
control
1
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to
be achieved, but also the means by which such end is reached.
• Distinguish between “rules that fix methodology” vs. “rules that are
mere guidelines.”
2
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
But this is not to say that ALL insurance agents are NOT employees of the
insurance company. As the Supreme Court clarified in the case of Tongko
vs. Manufacturers' Life Insurance Company (Phils.) Inc. (G.R. No.
167622, 29 June 2010, En Banc), the Insular Life ruling above was
tempered with the qualification that had there been evidence that the
company promulgated rules or regulations that effectively controlled or
restricted an insurance agent's choice of methods or the methods
themselves in selling insurance, an employer-employee relationship would
have existed. In other words, the Court in Insular in no way definitively held
that insurance agents are not employees of insurance companies, but rather
made the same on a case-to-case basis.
• In the absence of such nexus, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction.
GOOD EXAMPLE: Indophil Textile Mills Vs. Adviento, G.R. No. 171212, 04
August 2014
have jurisdiction. While the maintenance of a safe and healthy workplace may
be a subject of a labor case, note that the cause of action is one for torts/quasi-
delict and that relief prayed for is the payment for damages arising from alleged
gross negligence on the part of the company to provide a safe, healthy and
workable environment for its employees.
The core issue to be resolved in this case is whether petitioner's complaint for
illegal dismissal constitutes an intra-corporate controversy and thus, beyond
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
The mere fact that the employee was a stockholder of the employer corporation
at the time of the case’s filing did not necessarily make the action an intra–
corporate controversy. “[N]ot all conflicts between the stockholders and the
corporation are classified as intra–corporate. There are other facts to consider
in determining whether the dispute involves corporate matters as to consider
them as intra–corporate controversies.” Time and again, the Court has ruled
that in determining the existence of an intra–corporate dispute, the status or
relationship of the parties and the nature of the question that is the subject of
the controversy must be taken into account. Raul C. Cosare vs. Broadcom
Asia, Inc. and Dante Arevalo, G.R. No. 201298, 05 February 2014
4
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
must both be complied with. If not complied with, then this is not an intra-
corporate controversy.
The fact that the parties involved in the controversy are all stockholders or that
the parties involved are the stockholders and the corporation does not
necessarily place the dispute within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the SEC
(now the Regional Trial Court). The better policy to be followed in
determining jurisdiction over a case should be to consider concurrent
factors such as the status or relationship of the parties or the nature of
the question that is subject of their controversy. In the absence of any
one of these factors, the SEC will not have jurisdiction. Furthermore, it
does not necessarily follow that every conflict between the corporation and its
stockholders would involve such corporate matters as only SEC (now the
Regional Trial Court) can resolve in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial powers.
The Court then combined the two tests and declared that jurisdiction should be
determined by considering not only the status or relationship of the parties, but
also the nature of the question under controversy. This two-tier test was
adopted in the recent case of Speed Distribution Inc. v. Court of Appeals:
'To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate
controversy, and is to be heard and decided by the
branches of the RTC specifically designated by the Court
to try and decide such cases, two elements must concur:
(a) the status or relationship of the parties, and (2) the
nature of the question that is the subject of their
controversy.
The first element requires that the controversy must arise
out of intra-corporate or partnership relations between any
or all of the parties and the corporation, partnership, or
association of which they are not stockholders, members
or associates, between any or all of them and the
corporation, partnership or association of which they are
stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and
between such corporation, partnership, or association and
the State insofar as it concerns the individual franchises.
The second element requires that the dispute among the
parties be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the
corporation. If the nature of the controversy involves
matters that are purely civil in character, necessarily, the
case does not involve an intra-corporate controversy.'
[Citations omitted.]
Guided by this recent jurisprudence, we thus find no merit in respondents'
contention that the fact alone that petitioner is a stockholder and director of
respondent corporation automatically classifies this case as an intra-
corporate controversy. To reiterate, not all conflicts between the stockholders
and the corporation are classified as intra-corporate. There are other factors
to consider in determining whether the dispute involves corporate matters as
to consider them as intra-corporate controversies.
|||
6
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
• DEL CASTILLO CASE: Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corp., G.R. No.
206390, 30 January 2017] -- It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor cases, as in
other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, “the quantum of proof
necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”
'The burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an
issue.' Since it is Valencia here who is claiming to be an employee of Classique
Vinyl, it is thus incumbent upon him to proffer evidence to prove the existence of
employer-employee relationship between them. He needs to show by substantial
evidence that he was indeed an employee of the company against which he claims
illegal dismissal. Corollary, the burden to prove the elements of an employer-
employee relationship, viz.: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2)
the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power of control, lies
upon Valencia.
Indeed, there is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the afore-mentioned
elements of employer-employee relationship. "Any competent and relevant
evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted." In this case, however,
Valencia failed to present competent evidence, documentary or otherwise, to
support his claimed employer-employee relationship between him and Classique
Vinyl. All he advanced were mere factual assertions unsupported by proof.
|||
3. There must exist SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE to prove valid exercise of
management prerogatives, viz., just or authorized cause of termination. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt not required in administrative cases.
CONTRA: But where the terms are clear, there is no need for interpretation.
7
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
The Supreme Court denied the claims for reimbursement of the hospital expenses. The
CBA provision indicates an intention to limit the company’s liability to actual expenses
incurred by the employees’ dependents. This condition is obviously intended to thwart
not only fraudulent claims but also double claims for the same loss/injury. The
employees cannot unduly enrich themselves by claiming reimbursements of expenses
already paid by the dependents’ health providers.
“It is well to note at this point that the CBA constitutes a contract between the parties
and as such, it should be strictly construed for the purpose of limiting the amount of the
employer's liability (in respect of hospital charges). The terms of the subject provision
are clear and provide no room for any other interpretation. As there is no ambiguity, the
terms must be taken in their plain, ordinary and popular sense. Consequently,
MMPSEU cannot rely on the rule that a contract of insurance is to be liberally
construed in favor of the insured. Neither can it rely on the theory that any doubt must
be resolved in favor of labor.”|||
7. Paradigm shift towards mutual cooperation - It is high time that employer and
employee cease to view each other as adversaries and instead recognize that there is a
symbiotic relationship, wherein they must rely on each other to ensure the success of
the business. (Toyota Motor Phils. Workers vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171)
8
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
B. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES:
1. GENERAL PRINCIPLE: Management is free to regulate, according to its discretion and
judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working
methods, time, place and manner of work, processes to be followed, supervision of
workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of
workers, and discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. (DEL CASTILLO Ponente:
Julie’s Bakeshop vs. Arnaiz, 666 SCRA 1010 [2012]).
DEL CASTILLO, Pantoja v. SCA Hygiene Products Corporation, G.R. No. 163554,
[April 23, 2010], 633 PHIL 235-243). -- As long as no arbitrary or malicious action
on the part of an employer is shown, the wisdom of a business judgment to implement a
cost saving device is beyond this court's determination. After all, the free will of
management to conduct its own business affairs to achieve its purposes cannot be
denied. (citing Maya Farms Employees Org. vs NLRC, GR No. 106256, 28 Dec 1994)
The free will of the management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose cannot
be denied, PROVIDED THAT THE SAME IS EXERCISED:
3.1 Transfer as demotion, viz from baker to utility personnel, gives rise to
constructive dismissal -- DEL CASTILLO case: Julie’s Bakeshop vs.
Arnaiz, G.R. No. 173882, 15 Feb 2012.
9
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
In constructive dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the
transfer of an employee is for just or valid ground, such as genuine business
necessity. The employer must demonstrate that the transfer is not unreasonable,
inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee and that the transfer does not involve
a demotion in rank or a diminution in salary and other benefits. "If the employer
fails to overcome this burden of proof, the employee's transfer is tantamount to
unlawful constructive dismissal."
In this case, petitioners insist that the transfer of respondents was a measure of
self-preservation and was prompted by a desire to protect the health of the
buying public, claiming that respondents should be transferred to a position
where they could not sabotage the business pending resolution of their cases.
According to petitioners, the possibility that respondents might introduce harmful
substances to the bread while in the performance of their duties as chief bakers
is not imaginary but real as borne out by what Tolores did in one of the
bakeshops in Culasi, Antique where he was assigned as baker.
This postulation is not well-taken. On the contrary, petitioners failed to satisfy the
burden of proving that the transfer was based on just or valid ground.
Petitioners' bare assertions of imminent threat from the respondents are
mere accusations which are not substantiated by any proof. This Court is
proscribed from making conclusions based on mere presumptions or
suppositions. An employee's fate cannot be justly hinged upon conjectures
and surmises. The act attributed against Tolores does not even convince us as
he was merely a suspected culprit in the alleged sabotage for which no
investigation took place to establish his guilt or culpability. Besides, Reyes still
retained Tolores as an employee and chief baker when he could have dismissed
him for cause if the allegations were indeed found true. In view of these, this
Court finds no compelling reason to justify the transfer of respondents from chief
bakers to utility/security personnel. What appears to this Court is that
respondents' transfer was an act of retaliation on the part of petitioners due to the
former's filing of complaints against them, and thus, was clearly made in bad
faith. In fact, petitioner Reyes even admitted that he caused the reassignments
due to the pending complaints filed against him.
There was constructive dismissal when Francisco was transferred to the Cost
Accounting Section. Francisco’s transfer to the position of Cost Controller was
without valid basis and that it amounted to a demotion in rank. Hence, there was
constructive dismissal.
The fact that Francisco continued to report for work does not necessarily suggest
that constructive dismissal has not occurred, nor does it operate as a waiver.
Constructive dismissal occurs not when the employee ceases to report for work,
but when the unwarranted acts of the employer are committed to the end that the
10
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
C. KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT
1. REGULAR EMPLOYEES – those who are hired for activities which are
necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer.
3. TERM EMPLOYEES – those who are hired for a specific period, the arrival of the
date specified in the contract of which automatically terminates the employer-
employee relationship. (Brent School vs. NLRC, 181 SCRA 702 [1989], reiterated in
AMA Computer – Paranaque vs. Austria, 538 SCRA 438 [November 2007]).
Situation: High School teacher on probationary status with fixed term contracts
who was able to complete three consecutive years of service. Teacher no longer
rehired on the ground that with the expiration of the contract to teach, the
employment contract would no longer be renewed.
Issue: May the probationary teacher be validly dismissed for expiration of the
contract to teach?
11
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
Yolanda Mercado, et al. vs. AMA Computer College Parañaque City, Inc. 618
SCRA 218 [2010].- The Supreme Court stated that nothing is illegitimate in
defining the school-teacher on fixed term basis. HOWEVER, the school should
not forget that its system of fixed-term contract is a system that operates
during the probationary period and for this reason is subject to the terms of
Article 281 of the Labor Code. Unless this reconciliation is made, the
requirements of this Article on probationary status would be fully negated as the
school may freely choose not to renew contracts simply because their terms have
expired.
Given the clear constitutional and statutory intents, the Supreme Court concluded
that in a situation where the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term contract
not specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281 should assume
primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract must give way.
NOTE1: In this instance therefore, the School illegally dismissed the teachers
because it simply refused to renew the employment contract. Because the
teachers were under a probationary period, it was incumbent upon the School to
have evaluated said teachers, and to have informed them of their failure to qualify
as regular employees in accordance with standards made known to them at the
time of hiring.
employment is for a specific purpose with particular focus on the term and with
every intent to end her teaching relationship with the school upon expiration of this
term. (Mercado, et al. vs. AMA Computer College Parañaque City, Inc. 618 SCRA
218 [2010]. Emphasis supplied.)
DEL CASTILLO case: Herma Shipyard, Inc. v. Oliveros, G.R. No. 208936, 17
|
13
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
scope of which was specified at, and made known to them, at the time of their
engagement. It is crucial that the employees were informed of their status as
project employees at the time of hiring and that the period of their employment
must be knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force,
duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employees or any
other circumstances vitiating their consent.
In this case, respondents knowingly and voluntarily entered into and signed the
project-based employment contracts. There is no indication that respondents were
coerced into signing their employment contract or that they affixed their signature
thereto against their will. While they claim that they signed the said contracts in order
to secure continuous employment, they have not, however, presented sufficient
evidence to support the same other than their bare allegations. It is settled that
"[c]ontracts for project employment are valid under the law.
DEL CASTILLO case: Vicmar Development Corp. v. Elarcosa, G.R. No. 202215,
09 December 2015. – Presumption is that employees are regular, where the
activities for which they were hired is necessary or desirable in the usual trade or
business of the company. Continuous hiring of extra/seasonal workers gives rise to
presumption that they have attained status of regular employees.
Vicmar is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing of plywood for export
and for local sale, which employed respondents in various capacities — as boiler
tenders, block board receivers, waste feeders, plywood checkers, plywood sander,
conveyor operator, ripsaw operator, lumber grader, pallet repair, glue mixer, boiler
fireman, steel strap repair, debarker operator, plywood repair and reprocessor, civil
workers and plant maintenance, some of whom started working in 1990.
Company claimed that they were supposedly initially employed as "extra"
(seasonal) workers; then they were hired by an independent contractor.
On account of perceived violations of labor standards, respondents thus filed a
case in DOLE agst Vicmar, especially that most were no longer scheduled for work
nor given any work schedule.
ISSUE: Are they regular or seasonal workers? (Answer: Regular).
There is substantial evidence to prove that respondents were regular employees as
they were shown to have performed activities necessary in the usual business of
Vicmar. Most of them were assigned to activities essential for plywood production,
the central business of Vicmar. In the list above, more than half of the respondents
14
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
were assigned to the boiler, where pieces of plywood were cooked to perfection.
While the other respondents appeared to have been assigned to other sections in
the company, the presumption of regular employment should be granted in their
favor pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code since they had been performing the
same activity for at least one year, as they were assigned to the same sections, and
there is no indication that their respective activities ceased.
The test to determine whether an employee is regular is the reasonable connection
between the activity he performs and its relation to the employer's business or
trade, as in the case of respondents assigned to the boiler section. Nonetheless,
the continuous re-engagement of all respondents to perform the same kind of tasks
proved the necessity and desirability of their services in the business of
Vicmar. Likewise, considering that respondents appeared to have been performing
their duties for at least one year is sufficient proof of the necessity, if not the
indispensability of their activities in Vicmar's business.
6. CASUAL EMPLOYEES – those who are hired to perform work or service which is
merely incidental to the business of the employer. Any casual employee who has
rendered at least one (1) year of service, whether it be continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity for which he is employed,
and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
15
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
FRAMEWORK:
General rule: Employment is deemed regular
Exception to exception:
Probationary employees allowed to work after probn. period
Casual workers rendering service for more than one year
Term employee allowed to work after term has expired/ended
Project employee allowed to work after project without any contract; or project
employee allowed to work project after project but no termination reports.
16
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
For labor-only to exist, Sec. 5 of Department Order No. 18-02 requires any two of
the elements to be present, viz.:
17
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
Petron contends that the CA erred in ruling that ABC is a labor-only contractor
since respondents failed to prove that ABC is not an independent contractor. The
contention, however, is incorrect.
The Court finds that complainants are regular employees of Petron. Gestupa,
Ponteras, Develos, Blanco and Mariano were LPG fillers and maintenance crew;
Caberte was an LPG operator supervisor; Te was a warehouseman and utility
worker; and Servicio and Galorosa were tanker receiving crew and utility
workers. Undoubtedly, the work they rendered were directly related to Petron's
main business, vital as they are in the manufacture and distribution of petroleum
products. Besides, some of the respondents were already working for Petron
even before it engaged ABC as a contractor in 1996. Albeit it was made to
appear that they were under the different contractors that Petron engaged over
the years, respondents have been regularly performing the same tasks within the
premises of Petron. Thus "the repeated and continuing need for the performance
18
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
From the foregoing, it is clear that Petron failed to discharge its burden of proving
that ABC is not a labor-only contractor. Consequently, and as warranted by the
facts, the Court declares ABC as a mere labor-only
DEL CASTILLO case: Alilin v. Petron Corp., G.R. No. 177592, 09 June 2014.
Petron has maintained power of control over the petitioners. Here, Petron
could order petitioners to do work outside of their regular "maintenance/utility"
job. Also, petitioners were required to report for work everyday at the bulk plant,
observe an 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily work schedule, and wear proper uniform
and safety helmets as prescribed by the safety and security measures being
implemented within the bulk plant. All these imply control. In an industry where
safety is of paramount concern, control and supervision over sensitive
operations, such as those performed by the petitioners, are inevitable if not at all
necessary. Indeed, Petron deals with commodities that are highly volatile and
flammable which, if mishandled or not properly attended to, may cause serious
injuries and damage to property and the environment. Naturally, supervision by
Petron is essential in every aspect of its product handling in order not to
19
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
compromise the integrity, quality and safety of the products that it distributes to
the consuming public.
Moreover, petitioners already attained regular status as employees of
Petron. Petitioners were given various work assignments such as tanker
receiving, barge loading, sounding, gauging, warehousing, mixing, painting,
carpentry, driving, gasul filling and other utility works. Petron refers to these work
assignments as menial works which could be performed by any able-bodied
individual. The Court finds, however, that while the jobs performed by petitioners
may be menial and mechanical, they are nevertheless necessary and related to
Petron's business operations. If not for these tasks, Petron's products will not
reach the consumers in their proper state. Indeed, petitioners' roles were vital
inasmuch as they involve the preparation of the products that Petron will
distribute to its consumers.
DEL CASTILLO case: Alviado et. al. vs. Procter & Gamble, and Promm
Gemm, G.R. No. 160506, 09 March 2010
The law and its implementing rules recognize that management may rightfully
exercise its prerogatives in determining what activities may be contracted out,
regardless of whether such activity is peripheral or core in nature.
The company Procter & Gamble was principally engaged in the manufacture and
production of different consumer and health products, which it sells on a
wholesale basis to various supermarkets and distributors. To enhance consumer
awareness and acceptance of the products, P&G entered into contracts with
Promm-Gem and SAPS for the promotion and merchandising of its products.
The Supreme Court ruled that the where the agency (independent contractor)
complied with all the requisites of permissible job contracting such as substantial
capitalization and there being no control, then complainants were employees of
the job contractors and NOT of the principal Proctor & Gamble.
On the other hand, if the agency failed to comply with the requisites, then ‘labor-
only’ contracting is presumed to exist, and the Labor Code itself establishes an
employer-employee relationship between the employer and the employees of the
‘labor-only’ contractor." The statute establishes this relationship for a
comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The contractor
is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is
responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees
had been directly employed by the principal employer.
20
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
• EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. -- Employees who work with substantially equal
qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions should be paid
similar salaries (International School Alliance of Educators vs. Quisumbing, GR
No.128845, June 1, 2000).
Art. 1706. Withholding of the wages, except for a debt due, shall not be made by the
employer.
Art. 1707. The laborer’s wages shall be a lien on the goods manufactured or the
work done.
Art. 1708. The laborer’s wages shall not be subject to execution or attachment
except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing, and medical attendance.
Art. 1709. The employer shall neither seize nor retain any tool or other articles
belonging to the laborer.
Exceptions:
21
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
Answer: The employee must prove by substantial evidence that the giving of the
benefit is done over a long period of time, and that it has been made consistently
and deliberately. Jurisprudence has not laid down any hard-and-fast rule as to
the length of time that company practice should have been exercised in order to
constitute voluntary employer practice. The common denominator in previously
decided cases appears to be the regularity and deliberateness of the grant of
benefits over a significant period of time. It requires an indubitable showing that
the employer agreed to continue giving the benefit knowing well that the
employees are not covered by any provision of the law or agreement requiring
payment thereof. In sum, the benefit must be characterized by regularity,
voluntary and deliberate intent of the employer to grant the benefit over a
considerable period of time.
3. BONUS
3.1 Nature of a bonus: a prerogative, not an obligation. -- The matter of giving a
bonus over and above the worker’s lawful salaries and allowances is entirely
dependent on the financial capability of the employer to give it. (Traders Royal
Bank vs. NLRC, 189 SCRA 274 [1990]).
a. If the commission form part of the employees’ basic salary, then this will
likewise be included in the computation of 13th month pay. (Philippine
Duplicators, Inc. vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 380 [1995]).
22
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
5.2 Homeworker, defined.-- one who performs in or about his home any
processing of goods or materials, in whole or in part, which have been
furnished directly or indirectly, by an employer and thereafter to be
returned to the latter. (Book III, Rule XIV, Section 1 of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code.)
2) It also makes explicit the employer’s duty to pay and remit SSS, Philhealth and ECC
premiums.
6.1 GENERAL RULE: Employment of any child below fifteen (15) years of age is
prohibited
EXCEPT:
1. When he works directly under the sole responsibility of his parents or guardian,
and his employment does not in any way interfere with his schooling. The
following conditions must be met:
• The employment does not endanger the child’s life, safety, health and morals;
• The employment does not impair the child’s normal development;
• The employer parent or legal guardian provides the child with the primary
and/or secondary education prescribed by the Department of Education
6.2 NOTE: In the above-exceptional cases where any such child may be employed, the
employer shall first secure, before engaging such child, a work permit from the
Department of Labor and Employment which shall ensure observance of the above
requirements. (Rep. Act. No. 9231).
ON HAZARDOUS WORK. -- Any person between fifteen (15) and eighteen (18) years
of age may be employed for NON-HAZARDOUS WORK for such number of hours and
such periods of the day as determined by the Secretary of Labor in appropriate
regulations. No such prohibition if eighteen (18) years old and above.
A child below 15 • Allowed to work for not more than 20 hours a week.
Provided, the work shall not be more than 4 hours in a
day.
• Shall not be allowed to work between 8pm and 6am of
the following day.
A child above 15 • Shall not be allowed to work for more than 8 hours a
years of age but day, and in no case beyond 40 hours a week.
below 18 • Shall not be allowed to work between 10 pm and 6am
the following day
7.2 Learners are persons hired as trainees in semi-skilled and other industrial
occupations which are non-apprenticeable and may be learned through practical
training on the job in a relatively short period of time which shall not exceed three
months.
25
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
APPRENTICESHIP LEARNERSHIP
8. DISABLED WORKERS
1. Private entities that employ disabled persons who meet the required skills or
qualifications either as regular employee, apprentice or learner, shall be
entitled to an additional deduction from their gross income, equivalent to 25%
of the total amount paid as salaries and wages to disabled persons; Provided,
that the following are complied with:
a. Presentation of proof certified by DOLE that disabled persons are under
their employ; and
b. Disabled employee is accredited with DOLE and DOH as to his
disability, skills and qualifications.
26
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
EXCEPTION:
Where the company provides for a Retirement Plan with earlier retirement age,
then the company’s Retirement Plan will apply
EXCEPTION:
Where the company provides for a Retirement Plan with better benefits, then the
company’s Retirement Plan will apply
27
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
Employees are legally entitled to recover both separation pay and retirement
benefits in the absence of a specific prohibition in the Retirement Plan or
CBA. In such an instance where both the company rules or CBA and the
retirement plan are silent, an employee is not barred from claiming his early
retirement benefits, even if he/she had already received his retrenchment
pay, and has executed a Quitclaim to that effect. This must be so because
he is legally entitled thereto as a general rule.
General Milling Corporation vs. Viajar, G.R. No. 181738, 30 January 2013,
Citing Quevedo vs. Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc., 599 SCRA 438
[2009]. -- While termination of employment and retirement from service are
common modes of ending employment, they are mutually exclusive, with
varying judicial bases and resulting benefits. Retirement from the service is
contractual (i.e. based on the bilateral agreement of the employer and
employee), while termination of employment is statutory (i.e. governed by
the Labor Code and other related laws as to its grounds, benefits and
procedure. The benefits resulting from termination vary, depending on the
cause. For retirement, Article 287 of the Labor Code gives leeway to the
parties to stipulate above a floor of benefits.
DEL CASTILLO CASE: Allan M. Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees
Union (MWEU), G.R. No. 201595, 25 January 2016. –
Facts: Petitioner was a member of the Manila Water Employees Union (MWEU), the
bargaining agent of rank-and-file employees within Manila Water Company (MWC).
28
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
Petitioner refused to give written authorization that would enable deduction of increased
union dues, as he raised an appeal to the MWEU Board questioning the propriety of the
same. The Union did not heed his several appeals and sanctioned him repeatedly, for
which reason he filed the instant ULP case.
Issue: Is the present case an intra-union dispute which deprives the jurisdiction of Labor
Arbiter, or ULP under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter?
Rationale: An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and among union
members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of
membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union’s constitution
and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the union. Sections 1
and 2, Rule XI of Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the DOLE enumerate
the following circumstances as inter/intra-union disputes x xx.
However, petitioner’s charge of unfair labor practices falls within the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code. In
addition, Article 247 of the same Code provides that "the civil aspects of all cases
involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral, exemplary
and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other affirmative relief, shall be under
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters.
The Union was considered guilty of ULP when it adamantly failed to follow its own
appeal procedures in instances where a union member questions union policies or
regulations – as in fact, it did not even act upon the appeals made by petitioner.
Moreover, it did not follow the requisite procedure in imposing the penalty of suspension
and thereafter, expulsion upon one of its own.
employer like petitioner is to directly file a petition for cancellation of the union's
certificate of registration due to misrepresentation, false statement or fraud under the
circumstances enumerated in Article 239 of the Labor Code, as amended."
On the basis of the ruling in the above-cited case, it can be said that petitioner was
correct in filing a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration.
Petitioner's sole ground for seeking cancellation of respondent's certificate of
registration — that its members are managerial employees and for this reason, its
registration is thus a patent nullity for being an absolute violation of Article 245 of
the Labor Code which declares that managerial employees are ineligible to join
any labor organization — is, in a sense, an accusation that respondent is guilty of
misrepresentation for registering under the claim that its members are not managerial
employees.
However, the issue of whether respondent's members are managerial employees is
still pending resolution by way of petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 197089,
which is the culmination of all proceedings in DOLE Case No. NCR-OD-M-0705-007
— where the issue relative to the nature of respondent's membership was first raised
by petitioner itself and is there fiercely contested. The resolution of this issue cannot
be pre-empted; until it is determined with finality in G.R. No. 197089, the petition for
cancellation of respondent's certificate of registration on the grounds alleged by
petitioner cannot be resolved. As a matter of courtesy and in order to avoid conflicting
decisions, We must await the resolution of the petition in G.R. No. 197089.
The most efficacious bargaining unit is one which is comprised of workers enjoying
community of interests. This is so because the basic test of a bargaining unit’s
acceptability is whether it will best assure to all employees concerned of the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights.
30
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
1.1 Definition: It is the process of determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective
bargaining. (Sec. [n], Rule I, Book V, Implementing Rules.)
1.2 Nature of certification election: A certification election is not a litigation but merely
an investigation of a non-adversarial fact-finding character in which the Bureau of
Labor Relations plays the part of a disinterested investigator seeking merely to
ascertain the desires of the employees as to the matter of their representation.
(Airline Pilots Assn. Of the Philippines vs. CIR, 76 SCRA 274.)
31
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
General Rule: The employer is not a party in a certification election, which activity is the
sole concern of the workers. It is improper for the employer to be present at all during
the proceedings, even as an observer, let alone sit and participate therein thru a
representative.
Thus, Republic Act No. 9481 explicitly mandates that the employer is to be a
BYSTANDER in the certification election proceedings. Hence:
“Art. 258-A, LC. -- In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is
filed by an employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be
considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for
certification election. The employer’s participation in such proceedings shall
be limited to: (1) being notified or informed of petitions of such nature; and
(2) submitting the list of employees during the pre-election conference
should the Med-Arbiter act favorably on the petition”
Exception: Where the employer has to file a petition for certification election pursuant to
Art. 258 of the Labor Code because it was requested to bargain collectively. Even then,
it becomes a neutral bystander.
32
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
Guagua National Colleges v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union, G.R.
No. 204693, 13 July 2016. -- Anent the merits of the case, the NLRC held that based
on the totality of conduct of GNC, it was guilty of bad faith bargaining and therefore
committed an unfair labor practice. This was on account of GNC's submission of a
counter-proposal despite the parties already having reached an agreement regarding the
terms of the CBA. To the NLRC, the belated submission of GNC's counter-proposal was
intended to evade the execution of the CBA. With respect to GNC's alleged withdrawal
of employees' benefits, the NLRC ruled that pursuant to Article 253 of the Labor Code,
the parties have the duty to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect
the terms and conditions of their existing agreement within 60 days prior to the expiration
thereof and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. The NLRC, thus, held
that GNC failed to abide by this duty when it discontinued the release of benefits
pending the conclusion of a new CBA|||
General Rule: Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a
strike in cases of bargaining deadlocks or ULP.
2. Requisites of a valid strike: (a) Must have a lawful purpose; (b) conducted through
lawful means; and (c) must be in compliance with the procedural requirements under
the Labor Code.
3. Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) by employer; examples under Articles 259, LC:
33
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
(a) interference, restraint or coercion of the employees in their exercise of right to self-
organization;
(b) yellow-dog contracts, e.g., stipulation requiring employee not to join unions, or for
employee to withdraw from union as condition for continued employment;
(c) refusal to collectively bargain;
(d) economic inducement and/or discrimination in regard to wages, hours of work, in
order to encourage/discourage union membership;
(e) contracting out of services/functions being performed by union members, where
such will interfere in the exercise of right to self-org.,
(f) to dismiss, discharge, discriminate or prejudice an employee about to give testimony
under this Code;
(g) to violate a Collective Bargaining Agreement, among others.
4. Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) by Union; examples under Articles 260, LC:
(a) To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization. However, a labor organization shall have the right to prescribe
its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an
employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to
whom membership in such organization has been denied or to terminate an
employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under
which membership or continuation of membership is made available to
other members;
(c) To violate the duty, or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer,
provided it is the representative of the employees;
(d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay
or deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction,
for services which are not performed or not to be performed, including the
demand for fee for union negotiations;
(e) To ask for or accept negotiation or attorney's fees from employers as part of
the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or
(f) To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
||
Guagua National Colleges vs. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union,
G.R. No. 204693, 13 July 2016. – company engaged in bad faith bargaining, when it
used dilatory tactics to avoid signing of the CBA.
Facts: The Union Presidents wrote the GNC (College) of its intention to open the
negotiation for the renewal of the then existing CBA. Instead of serving upon
respondents a reply/counter-proposal within 10 days from its receipt of respondents'
proposal, the College wrote respondents calling for a meeting regarding CBA
34
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
negotiations. No agreement was reached except that the College would notify
respondents of the next negotiation meeting.
Respondents later received from College's Corporate Secretary, stated that the
"management is not inclined to grant the economic/monetary-related proposals.”
Finding their efforts at reaching management to be futile, the Union filed a preventive
mediation case with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board.
Respondents alleged that after several mediation meetings, the parties finally agreed
on the details regarding the grant of signing bonus. Hence, they undertook to compose
the final draft of the 2009-2014 CBA which it submitted to the NCMB. Atty. Padilla
appeared before the NCMB and asked for 10 days to submit GNC's comment/counter-
proposal to the purported draft CBA of respondents. Thus, respondents filed a notice of
strike.
Ruling: The collective conduct of GNC is indicative of its failure to meet its duty to
bargain in good faith. Badges of bad faith attended its actuations both at the plant and
NCMB levels.
At the plant level, GNC failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of serving a
reply/counter-proposal within 10 calendar days from receipt of a proposal, a fact
which by itself is already an indication of lack of genuine interest to bargain. Then, it
led respondents to believe that it was doing away with the reply/counter-proposal
when it proceeded to just orally discuss the economic terms. After a series of
negotiation meetings, the parties finally agreed on the economic terms which based
on the records was the only contentious issue between them.
In the days that followed, however, GNC ignored the follow-ups made by respondents
regarding the signing. It then suddenly capitalized on the fact that it had not yet
submitted a reply/counter-proposal and thereupon served one upon respondents
despite the parties already having reached an agreement.
It could not be any clearer from the above circumstances that GNC has no genuine
intention to comply with its duty to bargain. It merely went through the motions of
negotiations and then entered into an agreement with respondents which turned out
to be an empty one since it later denounced the same by submitting a reply/counter-
proposal. Worse, when respondents tried to clear out matters with the GNC President
through their letter of January 8, 2010, GNC did not even bother to respond.
Club Filipino, Inc., et al. vs. Benjamin Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 168406, 04 January
2015. -- The law requires knowledge of the illegality of the strike on the part of the union
officer before he can be dismisse
5. Assumption of Jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor or Certification of the
Labor Dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission for
Compulsory Arbitration.
35
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
|||
The character of the case, which involves an impending strike by petitioner's employees;
the nature of petitioner's business as a public transportation company, which is imbued
with public interest; the merits of its case; and the assumption of jurisdiction by the
Secretary of Labor — all these circumstances removed the case from the coverage of
Article 262, and instead placed it under Article 263, of the Labor Code. Besides, Rule
43 does not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code
It cannot be said that in taking cognizance of NCMB-NCR CASE No. NS-02-028-07, the
Secretary of Labor did so in a limited capacity, i.e., as a voluntary arbitrator. The fact is
undeniable that by referring the case to the Secretary of Labor, Conciliator-Mediator
Aglibut conceded that the case fell within the coverage of Article 263 of the Labor Code;
the impending strike in Philtranco, a public transportation company whose
business is imbued with public interest, required that the Secretary
of Labor assume jurisdiction over the case, which he in fact did. By assuming
jurisdiction over the case, the provisions of Article 263 became applicable, any
representation to the contrary or that he is deciding the case in his capacity as a
voluntary arbitrator notwithstanding.
When the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor case in an industry
indispensable to national interest, "he exercises great breadth of discretion" in finding a
solution to the parties' dispute. "[T]he authority of the Secretary of Labor to assume
jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to national interest includes and extends to all questions and
controversies arising therefrom. The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to
enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute. This wide
latitude of discretion given to the Secretary of Labor may not be the subject of
appeal.
L. LAW ON TERMINATION
36
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
many SILs were being granted, the highest single individual borrowing
reached a staggering P14 million, which thus adversely affected the
cooperative's ability to grant regular loans to other members of the
cooperative.
c) willful neglect of duties: imply bad faith on the part of the employee
in failing to perform his job, to the detriment of the employer and the
latter’s business
Quiambao v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., G.R. No. 171023,
18 December 2009. -- We have examined the records which indeed
show that petitioner's unauthorized absences as well as tardiness are
habitual despite having been penalized for past infractions. In Gustilo v.
Wyeth Philippines, Inc., we held that a series of irregularities when put
together may constitute serious misconduct.
39
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
We also held that gross neglect of duty becomes serious in character due
to frequency of instances. Serious misconduct is said to be a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and indicative of wrongful
intent and not mere error of judgment.
Oddly, petitioner never advanced any valid reason to justify his absences.
Petitioner's intentional and willful violation of company rules shows his
utter disregard of his work and his employer's interest. Indeed, there can
be no good faith in intentionally and habitually incurring unexcusable
absences. Thus, the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in equating petitioner's gross
neglect of duty to serious misconduct
Mapili v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 172506, 27 July
2011, Del Castillo. – Complainant is a bus conductor who repeatedly
failed to collect fares from passengers who were his friends or relatives.
The Supreme Court ruled that his dismissal on account of dishonesty
was valid; moreso that he had a propensity to commit repetitious
infractions evinces wrongful intent, making him undeserving of the
compassion accorded by law to labor. aSEHDA|||
It bears stressing that petitioner has been in the employ of PRBLI for
more than eight years already and is a member of the company's labor
union. As such, he ought to know the specific company rules pertaining
to his line of work as a bus conductor. For that matter, his length of
service has even aggravated the resulting consequences of his
transgressions. In addition, on April 8, 1994 and May 3, 1995, he
committed similar infractions of extending free ride to a police officer
40
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
We also cannot agree with petitioner's contention that his infraction was
trivial. As a bus conductor whose duties primarily include the collection
of transportation fares, which is the lifeblood of the PRBLI, petitioner
should have exercised the required diligence in the performance thereof
and his habitual failure to exercise the same cannot be taken for
granted. As correctly observed by the CA, petitioner's position is imbued
with trust and confidence because it involves handling of money and
failure to collect the proper fare from the riding public constitutes a
grave offense which justifies his dismissal. Moreover, petitioner's "series
of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct."
The Supreme Court in this case was not convinced that PNB lost its
confidence on Capili. As properly pointed out by the LA, PNB in fact
gave Capili a "Very Good" rating in her work performance. Particularly,
in her Performance Appraisal Report dated February 27, 2007, Capili
was given a "Very Good" rating by PNB. During this time, PNB was well
aware of the BP 22 cases against her, and the administrative case was
also then pending investigation already. When PNB gave Capili a very
satisfactory rating in her work performance, it did not consider the
pendency of the administrative case as sufficient to prevent her from
performing well in her work; in the process, she continually enjoyed the
trust and confidence of PNB.
party to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to it. Hence, the
management prerogative to discipline employees and impose
punishment cannot, as a general rule, be impliedly waived.However, it
must be emphasized that the respondent shall be pay P30,000 as
nominal damages to petitioner for non-compliance with the two notice
requirement.
42
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
The argument of the petitioner that she was induced into resigning
considering higher position and salary package is untenable.
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation
where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in
favor of the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but
to dissociate oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement
or relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the office
accompanied by the act of relinquishment.
3.1 DISEASE (separation pay of 1/2 month pay for every year of
service)
In Sy v. Court of Appeals (446 Phil. 404 [2003]) and Manly Express, Inc.
v. Payong, Jr., (510 Phil. 818 [2005]), the Court finally pronounced the
rule that the employer must furnish the employee two written notices in
terminations due to disease, namely: (1) the notice to apprise the
employee of the ground for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the
notice informing the employee of his dismissal, to be issued after the
employee has been given reasonable opportunity to answer and to be
heard on his defense. These rulings reinforce the State policy of
protecting the workers from being terminated without cause and without
affording them the opportunity to explain their side of the controversy.
44
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
3.3 RETRENCHMENT (Sepn. Pay: 1/2 month pay for every year of
service)
Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, in conjunction with Section 2, Rule
XXIII of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, the following
elements must be strictly complied with in order that the retrenchment
may be considered as valid:
1
See: Sebuguero vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 533 [1995].
2
San Pedro Hospital of Digos, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, 263 SCRA 98 [1996].
3
Guerrero vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 301 [1996]
4
San Miguel Jeepney Services vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 35 [1996]
45
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
3. The employer can lawfully close shop even if not due to serious
business losses or financial reverses but separation pay, which
is equivalent to at least one month pay as provided for by
Article 283 of the Labor Code, as amended, must be given to
all the affected employees.
46
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
Guided by the foregoing, the Court shall refuse to dwell on the issue of
whether respondent was in sound financial condition when it resolved to
stop the operations of its F & B Department. As stated, an employer can
lawfully close shop anytime even if not due to serious business losses or
financial reverses. Furthermore, the issue would entail an inquiry into the
factual veracity of the evidence presented by the parties, the
determination of which is not Our statutory function. Indeed, petitioner is
asking Us to sift through the evidence on record and pass upon whether
respondent had, in truth and in fact, suffered from serious business
losses or financial reverses.
EXCEPTION: If no due process but with just cause, then Agabon ruling to
apply.
which now affirms the Wenphil doctrine and abandoning the Serrano
ruling.
Agabon vs. NLRC ruling, G.R. No. 158693, 11/17/2004 - where there was
substantial evidence proving just cause BUT that due process was not
followed, the termination will be UPHELD (considered valid and effective)
but the employee will be penalized the amount of P30,000.00-50,000.00
(see discussion on difference below).
• If the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282 but the
employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to
be imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal
process was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee.
Hence: P30,000.00 nominal damages for non-compliance with due
process, because employee has committed an infraction
Should employee seek damages on this account, may file with regular
court. [Governed exclusively by the Civil Code. (Shoemart vs. NLRC,
supra.)]
6.2 HEARING:
Ø note that a formal hearing (as in the manner of regular courts) is not
required; only substantial evidence is necessary.
6.3 Right to counsel on the part of the employee – is this mandatory and
indispensable as part of due process?
NO. In the case of Lopez vs. Alturas Group, 11 April 2011, the Supreme
Court ruled that the “right to counsel and the assistance of one in
investigations involving termination cases is neither indispensable nor
mandatory, except when the employee himself requests for one or that he
manifests that he wants a formal hearing on the charges against him.”
7. ON REINSTATEMENT:
(International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 360 Phil. 527
[1998]), up to the date of employees actual or payroll reinstatement. Thus, it
was held in Garcia vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (531 SCRA 574 [2007]), that
failure on the part of the employer to exercise the options in the alternative,
the employer must pay the employee’s salaries.
2015 CASE: Smart Communications, Inc., et al. vs. Jose Leni Z. Solidum,
G.R. No. 204646, 15 April 2015. -- In illegal dismissal cases, if the LA
ordered reinstatement, and the employer failed to reinstate the employer
either actually or in the payroll, and the NLRC on appeal reversed the
decision of the LA, the employee is entitled to the accrued salaries and other
benefits from the date of the LA’s decision up to the date the NLRC decision
becomes final and executory
8. ON BACKWAGES
50
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
• It is true that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by
the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases. However, this procedural
rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary
rules. While the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law or equity are not
controlling in proceedings before the NLRC, the evidence presented before it must at
least have a modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value.
• On the other hand, the Secretary's Certificate attached to the Petition in CA-G.R. SP
No. 83168 giving authority to the Union President to file a Petition before the CA to
question the Secretary of Labor's arbitral award, was recognized by the Supreme
Court as valid and binding. While petitioner corporation claims that the proper
procedure for calling such a meeting was not followed, it presented no proof to
establish the same. Neither did the Union President Miranda, who allegedly did not
call for and preside over the said meeting, did not come out to contest the validity of
the aforesaid resolution or Secretary's Certificate. Similarly, petitioner corporation's
claim that the aforesaid resolution was still ineffective at the time of the filing of the
subject Petition is unsubstantiated.
2. Locsin vs. Mekeni Food Corporation, G.R. No. 192105, 09 Dec 2013. Del Castillo. –
on car plan agreement as a benefit and not as a loan.
• In the absence of specific terms and conditions governing a car plan agreement
between the employer and employee, the former may not retain the installment
payments made by the latter on the car plan and treat them as rents for the use of the
service vehicle, in the event that the employee ceases his employment and is unable
to complete the installment payments on the vehicle. The underlying reason is that
the service vehicle was precisely used in the former's business; any personal benefit
obtained by the employee from its use is merely incidental and insignificant, because
for the most part, the vehicle was under Mekeni’s complete control and supervision.
| |.
• Nor can the company retain the counterpart payments made by the employee as
purported loan payments, as it would have this Court believe. In the first place, there
is precisely no stipulation to such effect in their agreement. Secondly, it may not be
said that the car plan arrangement between the parties was a benefit that the
petitioner enjoyed; on the contrary, it was an absolute necessity in Mekeni's business
operations, which benefited it to the fullest extent. In light of the foregoing, petitioner
employee should be granted a refund of all his contributions to the car plan.
51
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
3. ON QUITCLAIMS
DEL CASTILLO: Iladan v. La Suerte International Manpower Agency, Inc., G.R. No.
203882, 11 January 2016 – Complainant employee alleges that the quitclaim she
signed was done involuntarily, as she was coerced into doing so.
The Court is not convinced as we find no proof of Iladan's allegations. It is a settled
jurisprudence that it is incumbent upon an employee to prove that his resignation is not
voluntary. However, Iladan did not adduce any competent evidence to prove that
respondents used force and threat.
For intimidation to vitiate consent, the following requisites must be
present; (1) that the intimidation caused the consent to be given; (2) that
the threatened act be unjust or unlawful; (3) that the threat be real or
serious, there being evident disproportion between the evil and the
resistance which all men can offer, leading to the choice of doing the act
which is forced on the person to do as the lesser evil; and (4) that it
produces a well-grounded fear from the fact that the person from whom it
comes has the necessary means or ability to inflict the threatened injury
to his person or property. In the instant case, not one of these essential
elements was amply proven by [Iladan]. Bare allegations of threat or force
do not constitute substantial evidence to support a finding of forced
resignation.
Resignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation
where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of
the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate
oneself from employment. 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 acts of the employee before and after the
alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether in fact, he
or she intended to sever from his or her employment.” (Citations omitted).
In the instant case, Iladan executed a resignation letter in her own handwriting. She
also accepted the amount of P35,000.00 as financial assistance and executed an
Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim and an Agreement, as settlement and
waiver of any cause of action against respondents. The affidavit of waiver and the
settlement were acknowledged/subscribed before Labor Attache Leonida Romulo on
August 6, 2009, and duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong. An
affidavit of waiver duly acknowledged before a notary public is a public document
which cannot be impugned by mere self-serving allegations. Proof of an irregularity in
its execution is absolutely essential. The Agreement likewise bears the signature of
Conciliator-Mediator Diaz. Thus, the signatures of these officials sufficiently prove that
Iladan was duly assisted when she signed the waiver and settlement. Concededly, the
presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
irregularity or failure to perform a duty. In this case, no such evidence was presented.
52
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
|||
DEL CASTILLO case: Turks Shawarma Co. v. Pajaron, G.R. No. 207156, 16 January
2017] –The Court has time and again held that "[t]he right to appeal is neither a natural right
nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law." The party who seeks to
avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to
appeal is lost. Financial difficulties may not be invoked as a valid ground to reduce bond; at
any rate, it was not even substantiated by proof. Moreover, the partial bond in the amount of
P15,000.00 is not reasonable in relation to the award which totalled to P197,936.27. |||
General Rule: The principle of immutability of judgment provides that once a judgment has
become final and executory, the same can no longer be altered or modified and the court's
duty is only to order its execution.
Exception: When there is a supervening event occurring after the judgment becomes final
and executory, which renders the decision unenforceable.
To note, a supervening event refers to facts that transpired after a judgment has become final
and executory, or to new situation that developed after the same attained finality.
Supervening events include matters that the parties were unaware of before or during trial as
they were not yet existing during that time.
In Valderrama, the supervening event was the closure of Commodex, the company therein,
after the decision became final and executory, and without any showing that it filed any
proceeding for bankruptcy. The Court held that therein petitioner, the owner of Commodex,
was personally liable for the judgment awards because she controlled the company.
Similarly, supervening events transpired in this case after the NLRC Decision became final
and executory, which rendered its execution impossible and unjust. Like inValderrama,
during the execution stage, DMI ceased its operation, and the same did not file any formal
notice regarding it. Added to this, in their Opposition to the Motion to Implead, spouses Smith
revealed that they only lent their names to petitioners, and they were included as
incorporators just to assist the latter in forming DMI; after such undertaking, spouses Smith
immediately transferred their rights in DMI to petitioners, which proved that petitioners were
the ones in control of DMI, and used the same in furthering their business interests.
In considering the foregoing events, the Court is not unmindful of the basic tenet that a
corporation has a separate and distinct personality from its stockholders, and from other
corporations it may be connected with. However, such personality may be disregarded,
or the veil of corporate fiction may be pierced attaching personal liability against
responsible person if the corporation's personality "is used to defeat public
53
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
1. TSM Shipping (Phils.), Inc. v. De Chavez, G.R. No. 198225, 27 September 2017. -- This
is outside the coverage, but bear in mind the principle that the employee’s heirs cannot
recover death benefits if the cause of death was self-inflicted.
FACTS: On August 23, 2005, petitioners hired Ryan Pableo DeChavez (Ryan) as chief
cook on board the oil tanker vessel Haruna Express for a period of nine months. However,
on February 26, 2006, Ryan was found dead inside his cabin bathroom hanging by the
shower cord and covered with blood. Thus, Ryan's surviving spouse, Shirley G. DeChavez
(Shirley), filed a complaint for death benefits.|||
Shirley is not entitled to death benefits under the POEA-Standard Employment Contract,
because the Medical Certificate of Death, the written statements of the Chief Mate, the Ship
Master, and Messman, as well as the investigation report prepared by International
Inspection and Testing Corporation (INTECO), uniformly found Ryan's cause of death as
suicide|||
Given the evidence on record, we hold that Ryan's death was due to his own deliberate act
and deed. Indeed the Medical Certificate of Death prepared by Dr. Sung Yeoul Hung of the
Ulsan City Hospital, who, it is presumed, must have examined Ryan's cadaver, and the
INTECO's Report which contained information involving the self-same death, must be
deemed as substantial evidence of that fact. We are satisfied that the material facts set
54
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
forth in the Decisions of both the LA and the NLRC constitute substantial evidence that
Ryan took his own life, that he died by his own hands. As such, his heirs are not entitled to
any benefit.
2. TSM Shipping Phils., Inc. v. Patiño, G.R. No. 210289, 20 March 2017. – Seafarer who
files total permanent disability claim before the lapse of the 120-day period, has no cause of
action as yet because the period for treatment and rehabilitation has not yet expired.
The seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the company-designated
physician within three (3) days from arrival for diagnosis and treatment.
For the duration of the treatment but in no case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is
on temporary total disability as he is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage
during this period until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged
by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his condition is defined under
the POEA Standard Employment Contract and by applicable Philippine laws.
If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is made because the
seafarer requires further medical attention, then the temporary total disability period may be
extended up to a maximum of 240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare
within this period that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may
of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is justified by his medical
condition.|||
In this case however, there was only 107 days since repatriation when respondent filed a
complaint for total and permanent disability benefits. During this time, he was considered
under temporary total disability inasmuch as the 120/240-day period had not yet lapsed.
Evidently, the complaint was prematurely filed.
Moreover, it is significant to note that when he filed his complaint, respondent was armed
only with the interim medical assessment of the company designated physician and his
belief that his injury had already rendered him permanently disabled. It was only after the
filing of such complaint or on November 9, 2010 that he sought the opinion of Dr. Escutin,
his own physician. As such, the Labor Arbiter should have dismissed at the first instance
the complaint for lack of cause of action.
3. Magsaysay Maritime Corp v. Cruz, G.R. No. 204769, 06 June 2016. – company doctor
is supposed to make a definite diagnoses within the 120-240 day period, and his
failure to do so gives rise to presumption that the seafarer is permanently and totally
disabled.
FACTS: In 2007, Magsaysay employed Rodel Cruz as housekeeping cleaner on board the
vessel Costa Fortuna. Respondent's employment was for 8 months (with 3-month
extension upon mutual consent of the parties) with basic monthly salary of €306.00 and
other benefits. While lifting heavy objects in the course of performing his duties, Cruz
experienced low back pain. As a result, he was repatriated on June 19, 2008, and was
immediately referred to Dr. Benigno A. Agbayani, the company-designated doctor.
55
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
On September 2008, Dr. Agbayani diagnosed respondent with "Discogenic pain L4/L5;
Myofacial pain syndrome erection sprain S/P Provocative Discogram and Percutaneous
Nucleoplasty." He gave respondent an interim disability rating of Grade 8 for "Moderate
rigidity of two thirds loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk." After more more than 20 PT
sessions, and non-invasive procedures, it was discovered that employee was was
suffering from mild degenerative changes in the lumbar spine. As such, Dr. Agbayani
declared that respondent's illness was work-related, and after almost one year from
respondent's repatriation, Dr. Agbayani gave respondent a disability rating of Grade 8 for
"moderate rigidity or two third loss of motion or lifting power of the trunk."
Cruz then filed a Complaint for permanent and total disability benefits, sickness allowance,
damages and attorney's fees against Magsaysay. He argued that he is entitled to disability
benefits because of the reasonable connection between his work and his illness. He
stressed that before his embarkation lie was declared fit to work; as such, it can be logically
inferred that he acquired his illness while aboard the vessel and by reason of its harsh
working environment.
Here, it is undisputed that respondent required medical treatment even after the lapse of
120 days from repatriation. As such, Dr, Agbayani should have made his definite
assessment on respondent's condition within the aforesaid 240-day period. Unfortunately,
Dr. Agbayani failed to timely issue a declaration as he only issued an assessment on
respondent's disability on June 1, 2009, almost one year from the latter's repatriation. By
operation of law, respondent is deemed permanently and totally disabled and is thus
entitled to full disability compensation.
4. Doehle-Philman v. Haro, G.R. No. 206522, 18 April 2016. – where the seafarer did not
suffer from any occupational disease listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC,
seafarer has the burden to prove that his illness is work-related in order that he may
be entitled to disability benefits.
FACTS: Doehle-Philman, in behalf of its foreign principal, Dohle Ltd., hired Haro as oiler
aboard the vessel MV Providencia for a period of nine months with basic monthly salary of
US$547.00 and other benefits. Before deployment, respondent underwent pre-employment
medical examination (PEME) and was declared fit for sea duty. Haro boarded the vessel
and assumed his duties as oiler in June 2008; however, in November 2008, he experienced
heartache and loss of energy after hammering and lifting a 120-kilogram machine;
thereafter, he was confined at a hospital in Rotterdam where he was informed of having a
hole in his heart that needed medical attention.
56
ABAD / ADAMSON 2018 LABOR DEL CASTILLO CASES & NOTES
FOR PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (PALS)
Haro was repatriated on December 2008. He claimed that he was confined for two days in
UST Hospital and that a heart operation was recommended to him. He nevertheless
admitted that he has not yet undergone any surgery. On April 2009, respondent’s personal
doctor, Dr. Luminardo M. Ramos, declared him not fit to work. As such, Haro filed a
Complaint for disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorney’s fees against petitioners.
ISSUE: Was Haro’s alleged inability to work for a period exceeding 120 days sufficient to
justify his entitlement to permanent total disability benefits?
HELD: NO. The Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of Filipino
Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels (POEA-SEC), particularly Section 20(B) thereof,
provides that the employer is liable for disability benefits when the seafarer suffers from a
work-related injury or illness during the term of his contract.
To emphasize, to be compensable, the injury or illness
1) must be work-related and
2) must have arisen during the term of the employment contract.
The Court held that those diseases not listed as occupational diseases may be
compensated if it is shown that they have been caused or aggravated by the seafarer’s
working conditions. The Court stressed that while the POEA-SEC provides for a disputable
presumption of work-relatedness as regards those not listed as occupational diseases, this
presumption does not necessarily result in an automatic grant of disability compensation.
The claimant still has the burden to present substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" that his work
conditions caused or at least increased the risk of contracting the illness.
In this case, considering that respondent did not suffer from any occupational disease listed
under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, then to be entitled to disability benefits, the
respondent has the burden to prove that his illness is work-related. Unfortunately, he failed
to discharge such burden. Respondent simply relied on the presumption that his illness is
work-related. He did not adduce substantial evidence that his work conditions caused, or at
the least increased the risk of contracting his illness. Haro did not elaborate on the nature of
his work and its connection to his illness. Certainly, he is not entitled to any disability
compensation
57