Mariano B. Daang v Skippers United Pacific Inc. and Commercial S.A.

1
Gr. No. 191902 , July , 2019

1. The law does not consider as valid any agreement to receive less
compensation than what a worker is entitled to recover nor prevent
him from demanding benefits to which he is entitled.2

2. A conditional settlement of a judgment award which is highly

prejudicial to the employee will be treated as a voluntary settlement of
his/her claim that operates as a final satisfaction in his/her favor,
rendering a case questioning the award moot and academic.3

3. The parties executed a Conditional Satisfaction of Judgment. Under

the parties’ Agreement, in the event of a reversal of the NLRC ruling,
Hernandez not only committed to return what he received, he also
waived his right to judicial recourse, thereby leaving him with the
proverbial empty bag. We held that such conditional payment of the
seafarer’s claim should be treated as a “voluntary settlement” in full
satisfaction of the NLRC’s judgment – which consequently rendered
the employer’s petition before the CA moot and academic.4

Elpidio T. Que v Asia Brewer, Inc and/or Michael G. Tan,

Gr. No. 202388, April 10, 2019

1. Redundancy exist when the service of an employee is in excess of

what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirement of the
business. A redundant position is one rendered superfluous by an

1
Mariano B. Daang v Skippers United Pacific Inc. and Commercial S.A, Gr. No. 191902, July, 2019

2
Ibid.
3
ibid
4
Ibid citing Hernandez v Crossworld Marine Services, Inc
 number of factors, such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume
of business, dropping of a particular product line previously
manufactured by the company or phasing out of service activity
formerly undertaken by the enterprise.5

2. Among the accepted criteria in implementing a redundancy program

are: 1) preferred status; 2) efficiency; 3) seniority.6

3. The determination of the continuing necessity of a particular officer or

position in a business corporation is a management prerogative and
the court will not interfere unless arbitrary or malicious action on the
part of management is shown.7

4. It is within the exclusive prerogative of management to determine the

qualification and fitness of an employee for hiring and firing,
promotion or reassignment. Indeed, an employer has no legal
obligation to keep more employees than are necessary for the
operation of its business.8

5. Substantial evidence, as amply explained in numerous cases, is that

amount of “relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.”9

6. Constructive dismissal has been defined as the “cessation of work

because continued employment is rendered impossible,
unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a
diminution in pay and other benefits.”10 It may exist “if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes so

5
Lowe, Inc v CA, 612 Phil. 1, 1056 (2009)
6 Elpidio T. Que v Asia Brewer, Inc and/or Michael G. Tan, Gr. No. 202388, April 10, 2019
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid citing Raymundo v Central Azucarera Dela Carlota
10
Ibid citing Morales v Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc, 68 Phil 112, 120 (2012)
 unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any
choice by him except to forego his continued employment.”11

Dominic Inocentes, etc al v. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc, Ryan I.

Syjuco, G.r no. 237020, July 29,201912

1. The principal test to determine whether employees were project, not

regular, employees, was to ascertain if they were assigned to carry
out a specific project or undertaking, the scope and duration of which
was specified and made known to the employees at the time of
engagement.13

2. The issue of whether a person is a regular employee (of a project

employee at that) involves factual matter which are generally beyond
the scope of a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as only
questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. 14

3. The Labor Code as amended defines a regular employee as a (a)

one that has been engaged to perform tasks usually necessary or
desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade – without falling
within the category of either a fixed, a project, or a seasonal
employee; or (b) one that has been engaged for at least a year, with
respect to the activity exists.15 On the other hand, a project employee
is one whose employment has been fixed for a specified project or
undertaking, the completion or termination of which is a made known
at the time of the engagement of the employee.16

11
ibid
12
Dominic Inocentes, Jeffrey Inocentes, Joseph Cornelio and Reymark Catangui v. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc
(RSCI/Arch. Ryan I. Syjuco G.r no. 237020, July 29,2019
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid citing Dacuital v L.m Camus Engineering Corp. Phil. 158, 169 (2010)
15
Article 295 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
16
ibid
 4. While the lack of a written contract does not necessarily make one a
regular employee, a written contract serves as proof that employees
were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their
statues as project employee at the commencement of their
engagement. There being none that was adduced here, the
presumption that the employees are regular employees prevails.17

Jaime Montealegre Chamon’te, Inc v Spouses Abraham and

Remedios de vera, G.r no. 208920, July 10, 201918

1. The Doctrine of Piercing the veil applies only in three basic areas,
namely: 1) defeat of public convenience as when the corporate fiction
is used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; 2) fraud
cases or when the corporate entity is used to justify a wrong protect
fraud, or defend a crime; or 3) alter ego cases, where a corporation is
merely a farce since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a
person, or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and
its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality,
agency, conduit or adjunct of another corporation. In the absence of
malice, bad faith or a specific provision of law making a corporate
officer liable, such corporate officer cannot be made personally liable
for corporate liabilities.19

2. The general rule is corporate officers are not held solidarily liable with
the corporation for separation pay because the corporation is
invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those
persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to
which it may be related. To hold a director or officer personally liable
for corporate obligation is the exception and it only occurs when the
following requisite are present: 1) the complaint must allege that the
17
ibid
18
Jaime Montealegre Chamon’te, Inc v Spouses Abraham and Remedios de vera, G.r no. 208920, July 10, 2019

19
ibid
 director or officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and 2)
there must be proof that the director or officer acted in bad faith. 20

20
Ibid citing Lozada v Mendoza