Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Soriano
BSBA-MGT 3RD YEAR
1. Lasallete of Santiago Inc., petitioner vs. NLRC and Clarita Javier, respondents.
c) Ruling
The Court held, according to Policy Instructions No. 11 issued by the Department of Labor and
Employment, the probationary employment of professors, instructors and teachers shall be subject
to standards established by the Department of Education and Culture. Said standards are embodied in
paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Unlike teachers (assistant
instructors, assistant, professors, associate professors, full professors) who aspire for and expect to
acquired permanency, or security of tenure, in their employment, as faculty members, teachers
who are appointed as department heads or administrative officials (e.g., college or department secretaries
principals, directors, assistant deans, deans) do not normally, and should not expect to, acquire a second
status of permanency, or an additional or second security of tenure as such officer. The acquisition
of such an additional tenure, to repeat, is not consistent with normal practice, constitutes the
exception rather than the rule, and may take place only where categorically and explicitly provided
by law or agreement of the parties. Therefore, private respondent did not acquire permanency or
tenure in the position of high school principal of the educational system of La Sallete of Santiago Inc.
On November 13, 1965, the striking union, MME, affiliate of the Philippine Federation of Petroleum
Workers and the employer-company, Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. (ESSO), concluded without the trial
court's intervention, a return to work agreement pending the resolution of their labor dispute by the
industrial court, and jointly sought the court's approval thereof, which was granted in a partial decision
dated Novem-ber 27, 1965, enjoining the parties to comply with the terms thereof.This gave a peculiar
aspect to the case at bar, as noted by the trial court itself in its decision in that "the parties to the labor
dispute have agreed on a set of proposals to be litigated as issues in this case, and the same parties have
by express stipulation reserved determination of other issues in cases now pending determination in other
branches of this Court."Thus, of eleven demands filed by the striking union after the filing of the joint
motion for approval of the return to work agreement dated November 12, 1965 - although the trial court
had earlier issued in open court an order on November 5, 1965, for the union to formalize in a petition all
its demands in con-nection with the case - the trial court in its decision at bar dismissed outright four
demands since they "are not any of those specifically provided as litigable issues in these proceedings and
are issues in the other cases pending before the different salas of the court of industrial relations. The
parties them-selves by the terms of their Return to Work Agreement of Nov-ember 12, 1965 have reserved
these cases for judicial deter-mination in the different salas where they are now pending consideration."
c. Ruling
The predecessor of the respondent company was Standard Vacuum Co. In 1960, the latter was split into
the present company and Mobil Philippines. The respondent absorbed all the working force in Luzon.
The Pandacan terminal to which most of the employees involved in this case were assigned is the main
distribution center for bulk and package products both during the time of Standard Vacuum Company and
subsequently when the splitting of this company took place afterwards. Because of this development plus
improved and more efficient operating conditions, respondent company real-ized that it has extra or excess
personnel, which later on were termed redundant employees.
On April 8, 1963, respondent company and the Citizens Labor Union (the majority bar-gaining
representative) executed a Collective Bar-gaining Agreement for a period of three years (up to July 8,
1966). At the time of the signing of this Agreement, almost all if not all of the present members of the
petitioner MME were then members of the contracting union including its incumbent president.
'It is expressly understood that the exer-cise by the Company of any of the foregoing functions shall not
alter any of the specific pro-visions of this Agreement, nor shall they be used to discriminate against any
employee because of membership in the Union. It is further under-stood that, in determining
reassignments, em-ployees will be assigned normally to related and comparable work whenever this is
feasible and consistent with efficient operations. Such reassignments will be prompted normally by
emergencies, operational needs of the business and/or lack of work.
a) Summary of case
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the Resolutions of the public respondent National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) dated April 30, 1987 and May 29, 1987 affirming the Decision of August
23, 1985 rendered by Labor Arbiter Julio P. Andres, Jr. holding that: respondent Aboitiz Shipping
Corporation could not be guilty of said charge (unfair labor practice through dismissal) for lack of
employer-employee relationship between them and the individual complainants at the time said act was
allegedly committed in April 1985 and consequently dismissing the case for lack of merit. Hence, this
petition anchored on two grounds:
1. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION COMMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION WHICH AMOUNTS TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.
2. THE RESOLUTIONS SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT."
b) Ruling
They therefore pray that the resolutions of public respondent be set aside; that this Court declare the
illegality of dismissal of individual petitioners; and that their reinstatement with full backwages to private
respondent as regular employees thereof be granted.In the resolution of April 18, 1988, this Court gave
due course to the petition and required the parties to file their simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30)
days from notice.Records reveal that petitioners are not regular employees of the private respondent at the
time of their alleged illegal dismissal. For one, petitioners, on June 20, 1984, filed individual application
for employment with Narben's Service Contractor. They were eventually issued payslips, deducted SSS
premiums, Pag-ibig fund and witholding tax from their salaries by this Contractor.As held in Mafinco
Trading Corporation vs. Ople, 70 SCRA 139 (1976), the existence of employer-employee relationship is
determined by four (4) elements, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the
payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control employees' conduct. From a
reading of the provisions of the aforesaid service contract, the concurrence of these four elements on
NARBEN's will easily be noted. For NARBEN's had the right to hire the necessary number of carpenters
to accomplish the carpentry requirements of respondent corporation and to fire them. It had charge of the
payment of wages of its laborers and the power of administrative supervision and general control as to the
time, manner and method of performance of work.
4. Dr. Renato Sara and Romeo Arana vs. NLRC GR.No. 73199, October 26 1998
c) Ruling
We find that although there was a selection and engagement of private respondent in 1977, the verbal
agreement between the parties negated the existence of the other requisites.
As to the payment of wages, the verbal agreement entered into by the parties stipulated that parties
respondent would be paid a commission of P2.00 per sack of milled rice sold as well as a 10% commission
on palay purchase. The arrangement thus was explicitly on a commission basis dependent on the volume
of sale or purchase. Private respondent was not guaranteed any minimum compensation nor was she
allowed any drawing account or advance of any kind against unearned commissions. Her right to
compensation depended upon and was measured by the tangible results she produced — the quantity of
rice sold and the quantity of palay purchased.
The power to terminate the relationship was mutually vested upon the parties. Either may terminate the
business arrangement at will, with or without cause.Finally, noticeably absent from the agreement between
the parties is the element of control. Among the four (4) requisites, control is deemed the most important
that the other requisites may even be disregarded. 6 Under the control test, an employer-employee
relationship exists if the "employer" has reserved the right to control the "employee" not only as to the
result of the work done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished. 7
Otherwise, no such relationship exists. chanrobles.com: claw.red
We observe that the means and methods of purchasing and selling rice or palay by private respondent
were totally independent of petitioners’ control. As established by the NLRC: chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library.
5. Mario Tiu and Jonathan Hayuhay vs. NLRC and Republic broadcasting system
Inc.
1. Republic Broadcasting System Inc. (RBS) had a collective bargaining agreement with GMA Channel
7 Employees Union (GMAEU). After the first quarter of 1991, RBS management noted the huge amount
of overtime expense it incurred during the said period, which averaged to P363,085.26 monthly. To
streamline its operations, the president of RBS created a committee to formulate guidelines on the
availment of leaves and rendering of overtime work.
2 RBS, through its personnel department, furnished GMAEU a copy of the new guidelines and requested
the latter to comment thereon. The union did not file any comment. Subsequently, RBS officially issued
the implementing guidelines on the availment of leaves and rendering of overtime services. The following
day, GMAEU sent a letter to the president of RBS wherein it argued that:
3. Thereafter, RBS management and GMAEU officials to thresh out the issues raised by GMAEU in its
26 letter. Both talks, however, were short lived as the union refused to hold further talks with RBS.
4. GMAEU filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) based
on unfair labor practices allegedly committed by RBS, as follows:
5.The NCMB set a conciliation meeting, but the Union held a strike vote among its members and
submitted the results thereof to the NCMB which showed that majority of the union members voted to go
on strike.
6.During the conciliation meeting held on 19 July 1991, RBS, through counsel, informed GMAEUs
officers that RBS did not violate any provision in the collective bargaining agreement since the issuance
of the guidelines was a management prerogative duly recognized in their agreement. As regards GMAEUs
charges of coercion, union interference and discrimination, RBS argued that these alleged unfair labor
practices were neither raised by the union in its letter nor during their subsequent talks. RBS counsel
requested GMAEUs officers to name the persons or officers of RBS involved in the alleged unfair labor
practices and to state the specific act or acts complained of so that RBS management could adequately
refute said allegations or impose appropriate disciplinary actions against its erring officers. GMAEUs
officers, however, ignored both RBS and the labor conciliators requests for a bill of particulars.
c) Ruling
The notice of strike filed by the union before the NCMB on 12 July 1991 contained general allegations
that RBS management committed unfair labor practices by its gross violation of the economic provisions
in their collective bargaining agreement and by alleged acts of coercion, union interference and
discrimination which amounted to union busting. It is the union, therefore, who had the burden of proof
to present substantial evidence to support these allegations.
It is not disputed that prior to 12 July 1991, the union treated RBS issuance of the guidelines on the
availment of leaves and rendering of overtime services as gross violations of the existing collective
bargaining agreement. In its talks with the union, RBS painstakingly explained that the said allegation was
unfounded because the issuance of said guidelines was RBS management prerogative. Up to that point,
the union never raised the issue of unfair labor practices allegedly committed by RBS official under Article
248 of the Labor Code. But in its notice of strike filed two days later, the union raised issues of coercion,
discrimination, and union interference for the first time.
Significantly, the union had two (2) conciliatory meetings arranged by the NCMB at which it could have
substantiated these additional allegations. However, the fact that it had submitted the results of the strike
vote even ahead of the conciliatory meetings, and continuously refused to substantiate its allegations in
its notice of strike thereafter, lends credence to the NLRCs observation that these charges were
indiscriminately hurled against RBS to give a semblance of validity to its notice of strike.
6. Associated Labor Union vs. judge Amador E. Gomez , judge Jose C. Borromeo
and superior gas and equipment co. of cebu inc. GR.No. L-25999, feb. 9, 1967.
c) Ruling
The Court of First Instance of Cebu, we rule, is without jurisdiction over the subject-matter of Case No.
R-9221. Its judges, therefore, did not have the authority to provide for an ancillary remedy in that case.
Hence, the injunction below complained of was issued coram non judice. It is void.
For the reasons given:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) the petition herein for a writ of certiorari and prohibition is hereby granted, and the writ of
preliminary injunction we issued on May 18, 1966 is declared permanent;
(2) the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance of Cebu in Case No. R-9221,
entitled "Superior Gas and Equipment Co. of Cebu, Inc., Petitioner, v. Associated Labor Union,"
respondent", is hereby declared null and void; and
(3) the respondent judges, or whoever shall take their place, are hereby directed to dismiss the said Case
No. R-9221.
b) Issue
Does the conduct of Teves warrant and justify dismissal?
c) Ruling
Even assuming that respondent's absenteeism constitutes willful disobedience, such offense does not
warrant respondent's dismissal.Not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience by an employee
reasonably deserves the penalty of dismissal. There must be a reasonable proportionality between the
offense and the penalty.While management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to impose
appropriate penalties on erring workers, pursuant to company rules and regulations, however, such
management prerogatives must be exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employers interest
and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws and
valid agreements. The Court is wont to reiterate that while an employer has its own interest to protect, and
pursuant thereto, it may terminate an employee for a just cause, such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an
employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion.Its implementation should be tempered with
compassion and understanding.The employer should bear in mind that, in the execution of said
prerogative, what is at stake is not only the employees position, but his very livelihood,his very
breadbasket.