Eviota v CA GR No.

152121, July 29, 20031

1. A money claim by a worker against the employer or vice-
versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter only if there
is a "reasonable causal connection" between the claim asserted and
employee-employer relation. Absent such a link, the complaint will be
cognizable by the regular courts of justice. 2

2. Actions between employees and employer where the

employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of
action precedes from a different source of obligation is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the regular court.3

3. The jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 of the

Labor Code, as amended, is limited to disputes arising from an
employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by
reference to the Labor Code of the Philippines, other labor laws or their
collective bargaining agreements. 4

Saudi Arabian Airline v Rebesencio

GR No. 198587, January 14, 20115
1. A choice of law governing the validity of contracts or the
interpretation of its provisions does not necessarily imply forum non
conveniens. Choice of law and forum non conveniens are entirely
different matters.6

2. Contractual choice of law is not determinative of

jurisdiction.7

3. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, "a court, in

conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where
it is not the most 'convenient' or available forum and the parties are not
precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. The use of the word
"may" (i.e., "may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction") in the decisions
shows that the matter of jurisdiction rests on the sound discretion of a
court. Neither the mere invocation of forum non conveniens nor the

1
Eviota v. CA, GR No. 152121, July 29, 2003. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jul2003/gr_152121_2003.html
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid, citing Georg Grotjahn GMBH & Co. v. Isnani, 235 SCRA 216 (1994).
5
Saudi Arabian Airline v. rebesencio, GR No. 198587, January 14, 2011.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015januarydecisions.php?id=316
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
 averment of foreign elements operates to automatically divest a court
of jurisdiction.8

4. Forum non conveniens must not only be clearly pleaded as

a ground for dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest
possible opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.9

5. Forum non conveniens is not a ground for a motion to

dismiss.10

6. Defendant must not only allege supposed dangerous

tendencies in litigating in this jurisdiction; the defendant must also show
that such danger is real and present in that litigation or dispute
resolution has commenced in another jurisdiction and that a foreign
tribunal has chosen to exercise jurisdiction.11

7. Forum non conveniens relates to forum, not to the choice

of governing law.12

8. Any evaluation of the propriety of contracting parties'

choice of a forum and its incidents must grapple with two (2)
considerations: first, the availability and adequacy of recourse to a
foreign tribunal; and second, the question of where, as between the
forum court and a foreign court, the balance of interests inhering in a
dispute weighs more heavily.13

9. The contracting parties may establish 'such stipulations,

clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient.
Nevertheless, while a Philippine tribunal (acting as the forum court) is
called upon to respect the parties' choice of governing law, such respect
must not be so permissive as to lose sight of considerations of law,
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy that underlie the
contract central to the controversy.14

10. Parties may not contract away applicable provisions of law

especially peremptory provisions dealing with matters heavily
impressed with public interest.15

8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid, citing Hesagawa v Kitamura, 563 Phil 572, (2002)
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
 11. It would be the height of iniquity to view pregnancy as a
disability so permanent and immutable that, it must entail the
termination of one's employment.16

12. Contracts relating to labor and employment are impressed

with public interest.17

13. Voluntary 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."18

14. Constructive dismissal has been defined as "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.19

15. Constructive dismissal has been described as tantamount

to "involuntarily resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable
conditions set by the employer.20

16. The gauge for constructive dismissal is whether a

reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to
give up his employment under the prevailing circumstances.21

17. In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid

cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer.22

18. Moral damages are awarded in termination cases where

the employee's dismissal was attended by bad faith, malice or fraud, or
where it constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or where it was done in
a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.23

16
Ibid.
17
Ibid, citing Civil Code, article 1306.
18
Ibid, citing Bilbao v Saudi Arabian Airline, 662 SCRA 540 (2011).
19
Ibid, citing Morales v Harbour Center Port Terminal 664 SCRA 110, (2002).
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid, citing Penaflor v. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation 632 Phil 221 (2010)
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
 19. Corporate directors and officers are not liable for the illegal
termination of a corporation's employees. It is only when they acted in
bad faith or with malice that they become solidarity liable with the
corporation.24

JOSE EMMANUEL P. GUILLERMO, v. CRISANTO P. USON,

S, March 07, 201625

1. Persons who were not originally impleaded in the case

were, even during execution, held to be solidarity liable with the
employer corporation for the latter's unpaid obligations to complainant-
employees.26

2. Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is held to apply only

in three (3) 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.27

3. The conferment of liability on officers for a corporation's

obligations to labor is held to be an exception to the general doctrine of
separate personality of a corporation.28

4. It also bears emphasis that in cases where personal liability

attaches, not even all officers are made accountable. Rather, only the
"responsible officer," i.e., the person directly responsible for and who
"acted in bad faith" in committing the illegal dismissal or any act violative
of the Labor Code, is held solidarily liable, in cases wherein the
corporate veil is pierced.29

5. The veil of corporate fiction can be pierced, and

responsible corporate directors and officers or even a separate but

24
Ibid, citing Ever Electrical Manufacturing Inc v Samahang Manggagawa ng Ever Electrical , 672 SCRA
562, 572 (2001)
25
Gillermo v.Uson, GR No. 198967, March 7, 2016.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016marchdecisions.php?id=210
26
Ibid, citing Claparols v. Court of Industrial Relations and A.C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC
27
Ibid, citing Pantranco Employees Association (PEA-PTGWO), et al. v. NLRC, 600 Phil 645, (2009)
28
Ibid, citing Reahs Corporation v. NLRC, 337 Phil 698 (1997)
29
Ibid.
 related corporation, may be impleaded and held answerable solidarily
in a labor case, even after final judgment and on execution, so long as
it is established that such persons have deliberately used the corporate
vehicle to unjustly evade the judgment obligation, or have resorted to
fraud, bad faith or malice in doing so.30

6. Not all conflicts between a stockholder and the corporation

are intra-corporate; an examination of the complaint must be made on
whether the complainant is involved in his capacity as a stockholder or
director, or as an employee.31

Mendoza v. Officers of MWEU

GR No. 201595, January 25, 201632

1. In labor cases, issues of fact are for the labor tribunals and
the CA to resolve, as this Court is not a trier of facts. However, when
the conclusion arrived at by them is erroneous in certain respects, and
would result in injustice as to the parties, this Court must intervene to
correct the error.33

2. 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.34

3. Unfair labor practices may be committed both by the

employer under Article 248 and by labor organizations under Article 249
of the Labor Code.35

4. The right of self-organization includes the right to organize

or affiliate with a labor union or determine which of two or more unions
in an establishment to join, and to engage in concerted activities with
co-workers for purposes of collective bargaining through
representatives of their own choosing, or for their mutual aid and
protection, i.e., the protection, promotion, or enhancement of their rights
and interests.36

30
Guillermo v. Uson, Supra.
31
Ibid.
32
Mendoza v. officers of MWEU, GR No. 201595, January 25, 2016.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/jan2016/gr_201595_2016.html
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid, citing Reyes v Trajano, GR No. 4433, June 2, 1992, 209 SCRA 484
 People of the Philippines v. Laogo GR No. 176264
January 10, 201137

1. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the

accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the
distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad
for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money
in order to be employed.38

2. It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer

of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether
locally or abroad.39

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. v. CABILES

GR No. 170139, August 05, 201440

1. Employers have the prerogative to impose productivity and

quality standards at work. They may also impose reasonable rules to
ensure that the employees comply with these standards. Failure to
comply may be a just cause for their dismissal.41

2. Lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract
is made) governs in this jurisdiction.42

3. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim
obnoxious to the forum’s public policy.43

4. The provisions of the Constitution as well as the Labor

Code which afford protection to labor apply to Filipino employees
whether working within the Philippines or abroad.44

5. The burden of proving that there is just cause for

termination is on the employer. "The employer must affirmatively show
rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable

37
People of the Philippines v. Laogo, GR No. 176264, January 10, 2011.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_176264_2011.html
38
Ibid, citing Lapasaran v. People 578 SCRA 658, 662
39
Ibid, citing People v. Angeles 380 SCRA 519, 526-527
40
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, GR No. 170139, August 05, 2014.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/aug2014/gr_170139_2014.html
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid.
 cause."Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination
would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.45

6. To show that dismissal resulting from inefficiency in work

is valid, it must be shown that: 1) the employer has set standards of
conduct and workmanship against which the employee will be judged;
2) the standards of conduct and workmanship must have been
communicated to the employee; and 3) the communication was made
at a reasonable time prior to the employee’s performance
assessment.46

7. A valid dismissal requires both a valid cause and

adherence to the valid procedure of dismissal. The employer is
required to give the charged employee at least two written notices
before termination. One of the written notices must inform the
employee of the particular acts that may cause his or her dismissal.
The other notice must "[inform] the employee of the employer’s
decision. "Aside from the notice requirement, the employee must also
be given "an opportunity to be heard."47

8. The clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less"83 is unconstitutional for violating
the equal protection clause and substantive due process. “limiting
wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas
worker to three months is both a violation of due process and the equal
protection clauses of the Constitution.”48

9. When a law or a provision of law is null because it is

inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by
reincorporation or reenactment of the same or a similar law or provision.
A law or provision of law that was already declared unconstitutional
remains as such unless circumstances have so changed as to warrant
a reverse conclusion.49

10. A law is void on this basis, only if classifications are made

arbitrarily.102 There is no violation of the equal protection clause if the
law applies equally to persons within the same class and if there are

45
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles. Supra.
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibiid, citing Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.
49
Ibid.
 reasonable grounds for distinguishing between those falling within the
class and those who do not fall within the class.50

11. A reasonable classification "(1) must rest on substantial

distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must
not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to
all members of the same class."51

12. Overseas workers regardless of their classifications are

entitled to security of tenure, at least for the period agreed upon in their
contracts.52

13. Circular No. 799 is not applicable when there is a law that
states otherwise. While the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has the power
to set or limit interest rates,133 these interest rates do not apply when
the law provides that a different interest rate shall be applied. "[A]
Central Bank Circular cannot repeal a law. Only a law can repeal
another law."53

14. Circular No. 799 is applicable only in loans and

forbearance of money, goods, or credits, and in judgments when there
is no stipulation on the applicable interest rate. Further, it is only
applicable if the judgment did not become final and executory before
July 1, 2013.54

15. Laws are deemed incorporated in contracts. "The

contracting parties need not repeat them. They do not even have to be
referred to. Every contract, thus, contains not only what has been
explicitly stipulated, but the statutory provisions that have any bearing
on the matter."55

16. If judgment did not become final and executory before July
1, 2013 and there was no stipulation in the contract providing for a
different interest rate, other money claims under Section 10 of Republic
Act No. 8042 shall be subject to the 6% interest per annum in
accordance with Circular No. 799.56

50
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc. v. Cabiles, Supra.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
 17. In the case of overseas employment, either the local
agency or the foreign employer may be sued for all claims arising from
the foreign employer’s labor law violations.57

57
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc. v. Cabiles, Supra.