Professional Documents
Culture Documents
later.
His dismissal prompted the Respondent to file a “Under Section 1, Rule XIV of the Implementing
complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal Regulations of the Labor Code, it is provided that
and unfair labor practices before the Labor "No worker shall be dismissed except for just or
Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter, however, dismissed authorized cause provided by law and after due
the complaint. But upon appeal to the NLRC, the process." Sections 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the same
said tribunal reversed the decision of the Labor rules require that before an employer may
Arbiter. dismiss an employee the latter must be given a
written notice stating the particular act or
Petitioner cried foul imputing to the NLRC omission constituting the grounds thereof; that
committed grave abuse of discretion, the employee may answer the allegations within
contending that the decision of Petitioner to a reasonable period; that the employer shall
dismiss Respondent was justified. In support of afford him ample opportunity to be heard and
his contention, Petitioner cited a provision in the to defend himself with the assistance of his
“Personnel Manual” which states that if an representative, if he so desires; and that it is
employee commits an offense punishable with only then that the employer may dismiss the
suspension of more than 15 days, an employee by notifying him of the decision in
investigation may be conducted at the request writing stating clearly the reasons therefor.
of the concerned employee. In this case, said
Petitioner, Respondent did not request for an “The failure of petitioner to give private
investigation, therefore, Respondent’s right to respondent the benefit of a hearing before he
invoke said provision should be deemed waived. was dismissed constitutes an infringement of his
constitutional right to due process of law and
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent’s right to due equal protection of the laws.
process was violated.
“The rule is explicit as above discussed. The
HELD: “The incident happened on May 20, 1985 dismissal of an employee must be for just or
and right then and there as afore repeated on authorized cause and after due
the following day private respondent was process. Petitioner committed an infraction of
suspended in the morning and was dismissed the second requirement. Thus, it must be
from the service in the afternoon. He received imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal
notice and conduct an investigation as required
by law before dismissing petitioner from
employment. Considering the circumstances of Issue:
this case petitioner must indemnify the private Whether or not the hiring of
respondent the amount of P1,000.00. The independent security agency by Isetann to
measure of this award depends on the facts of replace the Security Checkers Section a valid
each case and the gravity of the omission ground for the termination of Ruben Serrano
committed by the employer. Whether or not the non-compliance of
Isetann of the 30-day written notice
requirement in Art 283 (old) of the Labor Code
G.R. No. 117040 January 27, constituted a denial of due process
2000
Ruling:
RUBEN SERRANO, petitioner Article 283 of the Labor Code provides
vs that the employer may also terminate the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and employment of any employee due to the
ISETANN DEPARTMENT STORE, respondents installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy,
retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or
cessation of operations of the establishment or
Facts: undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose
Sometime in1991, Isetann Department of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by
Store (Isetann) instituted a retrenchment serving a written notice on the workers and the
program which abolished its Security Checkers Department of Labor and Employment at least
Section. Isetann engaged the services of an one month before the intended date thereof. In
independent security agency. On October 11, case of termination due to the installation of
1991, Ruben Serrano, the head of Isetann’s labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker
Security Checkers Section received a letter from affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation
the Human Resources Department of Isetann pay equivalent to at least one month pay or to at
terminating his services effective the same day. least one month pay for every year of service,
Because of loss of employment, Ruben whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to
Serrano filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and prevent losses and in cases of closure or
monetary claims. cessation of operations of establishment or
Labor Arbiter rendered judgement undertaking not due to serious business losses
finding the dismissal of Ruben Serrano illegal or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be
and that Isetann failed to accord due process to equivalent to at least one month pay or at least
the petitioner. Isetann was ordered to pay one-half month pay for every year of service,
Ruben Serrano full backwages from the time of whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six
his dismissal until reinstatement. months shall be considered as one whole year.
Isetann appealed to National Labor Supreme Court held that Management
Relations Commission (NLRC) which, reversed cannot be denied the faculty of promoting
the decisionof the Labor Arbiter and ordered efficiency and attaining economy by a study of
Ruben Serrano to be given separation pay what units are essential for its preparation. To it
equivalent to one month pay for every year of belongs the ultimate determination of whether
service. NLRC held that the abolition of the services should be performed by its personnel or
Security Checkers and hiring of an independent contracted to outside agencies. While there
security agency constituted an exercise by should be mutual consultation, eventually
Isetann of its legitimate business decision. deference is to be paid to what management
Petitioner appealed to the Supreme decides. Consequently, absent proof that
Court. management acted in a malicious or arbitrary
manner, the Court will not interfere with the development programs in the regional sales
exercise of judgement by an employer. The management level, he received a letter
termination of petitioner’s services was for an informing him that his region is the lowest
authorized cause.
performer in terms of recruiting. As a result,
Supreme Court also held that not all
notice requirements are requirements of due meetings were held to tackle on issues and
process. Some are simply part of a procedure to Tongko was provided with directives as part of
be followed before a right granted to a party can the changes needed to meet the goal.
be exercised. With respect to Art 283 of the Subsequently, Tongko received a notice of
Labor Code, the employer’s failure to comply termination with 15-day effectivity from receipt
with the notice of requirement does not of such letter.
constitute a denial of due process but a mere
failure to observe a procedure for the
termination of employment which makes the ISSUES:
termination merely ineffectual. 1. Was there an employer-employee
In sum, if in proceedings for relationship between Manulife and Tongko?
reinstatement under Art. 283, it is shown that 2. If yes, was Manulife guilty of illegal
the termination of employment was due to an dismissal?
authorized cause, then the employee should not
be ordered reinstated even though there is
RULING:
failure to comply with the 30-day notice
requirement. Instead, he must be granted 1. “Thus, with the company regulations
separation pay in accordance with Art. 283. and requirements alone, the fact that Tongko
If employee’s separation is without was an employee of Manulife may already be
cause, instead of being given separation pay, he established. Certainly, these requirements
should be reinstated. In either case, whether he controlled the means and methods by which
is reinstated or only granted separation pay, he
Tongko was to achieve the company's goals.”
should be paid full backwages if he has been laid
off without written notice at least 30 days in
advance. “Additionally, it must be pointed out that the
Petition granted and the resolution the fact that Tongko was tasked with recruiting a
NLRC is modifies by ordering Isetann to pay certain number of agents, in addition to his
petitioner separation pay equivalent to one other administrative functions, leads to no other
month pay for every year of service and full conclusion that he was an employee of
backwages from the time his employment was
Manulife.”
terminated up to the time decision becomes
final.
2. “Manulife did not even point out which
order or rule that Tongko disobeyed. More
TONGKO vs. MANULIFE importantly, Manulife did not point out the
specific acts that Tongko was guilty of that
FACTS: would constitute gross and habitual neglect of
Tongko started working at Manulife by virtue of duty or disobedience. Manulife merely cited
a Career Agent’s Agreement. He was first named Tongko's alleged ‘laggard performance,’ without
as Unit Manager in Manulife’s Sales Agency substantiating such claim, and equated the same
Organization and later on as Branch Manager. to disobedience and neglect of duty.”
When Manulife instituted manpower
“Here, Manulife failed to overcome such burden Aliling of the termination of his services effective
of proof. It must be reiterated that Manulife as of that date owing to his “non-satisfactory
even failed to identify the specific acts by which performance”.
Tongko's employment was terminated much less
support the same with substantial evidence. To Issue/s: Whether or not Aliling was illegally
repeat, mere conjectures cannot work to terminated by reason of violation of due process
deprive employees of their means of livelihood. requirement.
Thus, it must be concluded that Tongko was
illegally dismissed.” Held: YES, Aliling was illegally terminated. As a
rule to effect a legal dismissal the employer
“Moreover, as to Manulife's failure to comply must show not only a valid ground therefor but
with the twin notice rule, it reasons that also procedural due process should properly be
Tongko not being its employee is not entitled to observed. When the Labor Code speaks of
such notices. Since we have ruled that procedural due process, the reference is usually
Tongko is its employee, however, Manulife to the two (2) notice rule, envisaged in Section 2
clearly failed to afford Tongko said notices. (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules of
Thus, on this ground too, Manulife is guilty of Implementing the Labor Code which provides:
illegal dismissal.”
“Section 2. Standard of due process:
requirements of notice
ARMANDO ALILING, petitioner, vs. JOSE B. I. For termination of Employment base on just
FELICIANO, MANUEL F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R. causes as defined in Article 282 of the Coode:
LARIOSA AND WIDE WIDE WORLD EXPRESS (a) A written notice served on the
CORPORATION, respondents. employee specifying the ground or grounds of
termination, and giving the said employee
Facts: Aliling was an employee of Wide Wide reasonable opportunity to explain his side;
World Express Corporation (WWWEC) who was
(b) A hearing or conference during
tasked to handle the company’s Ground Express which the employee concerned, with the
(GX) involving domestic cargo forwarding assistance of counsel if the employee so desires,
services. Barely a month after, the company sent is given the opportunity to respond to the
an email to the petitioner to express charge, present his evidence or rebut the
dissatisfaction with the latter’s performance. On evidence presented against him; and
September 20, 2004 respondent through its (c) A written notice [of] termination
memo asked Aliling to explain why he should not served on the employee indicating that upon due
be terminated for failure to meet expected job consideration of all the circumstance, grounds
performance (This letter was later denied to have been established to justify his termination.
have been received by the petitioner, thus he
was not able to explain). Thereafter, on a letter As to the first written notice, WWWEC did not
dated October 1, 2004, respondent informed adduce proof to show that a copy of the letter
petitioner that his case was still in the process of was duly served upon Aliling. Clearly enough,
being evaluated. On October 6, 2004, WWWEC did not comply with the first notice
respondent again wrote, this time to advise requirement. Lastly, the termination letter did
not specifically state Aliling’s “non-satisfactory petitioner initiated the extrajudicial foreclosure
performance,” or that Aliling’s termination was of the real estate mortgage.
by reason of his failure to achieve his set quota.
In other words, the written notice of Respondents then filed Civil Case No. 69294 for
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Injunction
termination itself did not indicate all the
circumstances involving the charge to justify and Annulment of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale.
severance of employment. They imputed bad faith on the part of petitioner
who did not officially inform them of the denial
Here, the first and second notice requirements or disapproval of their proposal to settle the
have not been properly observed, thus tainting loan obligation by dacion via assignment of a
petitioner’s dismissal with illegality. commercial property. The trial court granted a
TRO effective for twenty (20) days.
EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC. vs. OJ-MARK Petitioner questioned the issuance of
TRADING, INC. and SPOUSES OSCAR AND preliminary injunction before the CA arguing
EVANGELINE MARTINEZ that the respondents are not entitled to
injunctive relief after having admitted that they
G.R. No. 165950 (August 11, 2010) were unable to settle their loan obligations. By
Decision dated October 29, 2004, the appellate
court sustained the assailed orders.
FACTS: ISSUE:
Respondent-spouses Oscar and Evangeline Whether or not the respondents have shown a
Martinez obtained loans from petitioner clear legal right to enjoin the foreclosure and
Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. in the aggregate amount
public auction of the third-party mortgagors
of P 4,048,800.00. As security for the said property while the case for annulment of REM
amount, a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) was
on said property is being tried.
executed over a condominium unit in San
Miguel Court, Valle Verde 5, Pasig City, Metro HELD:
Manila where the spouses are residing.
NO. The Supreme Court held that the
Respondent-spouses defaulted in the payment respondent spouses have not shown a clear
of their outstanding loan obligation, they offered legal right to enjoin the foreclosure. According
to settle their indebtedness with the assignment to the SC:
to the Bank of a commercial lot of
corresponding value and also requested for 1. It is not sufficient for the respondents to
simply harp on the serious damage they
recomputation at a lower interest rate and
stand to suffer if the foreclosure sale is
condonation of penalties. The respondents not stayed. They must establish such
failed to submit the required documents such as clear and unmistakable right to the
certificates of title and tax declarations so that injunction. Injunction is not a remedy to
the bank can evaluate his proposal to pay the protect or enforce contingent, abstract,
mortgage debt via dacion en pago. The or future rights; it will not issue to
protect a right not in esse and which
may never arise, or to restrain an action condition for the release of their termination
which did not give rise to a cause of benefits and separation pay. Petitioners refused
action. There must be an existence of to sign the documents and demanded to be paid
an actual right. their benefits and separation pay. Labor Arbiter
2. Respondents failed to show that they ruled in favour of Petitioner. NLRC affirmed. CA
have a right to be protected and that ruled in favour of Solid Mills.
the acts against which the writ is to be
directed are violative of the said right. ISSUE:
On the face of their clear admission that
WON Solid Mills Inc, can withhold the
they were unable to settle their
payment of vacation and sick leave benefits, 13
obligations which were secured by the
month pay and separation pay.
mortgage, petitioner has a clear right to
foreclose the mortgage. Foreclosure is HELD:
but a necessary consequence of non-
payment of a mortgage indebtedness. Our law supports the employers’
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. institution of clearance procedures before the
The Decision dated October 29, 2004 of release of wages. As an exception to the general
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. rule that wages may not be withheld and
77703 is hereby REVERSED and SET benefits may not be diminished, the Labor Code
ASIDE. Respondents application for a writ provides:
of preliminary injunction is DENIED.
Art. 113. Wage deduction. No employer, in his
own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall
EMER MILAN, RANDY MASANGKAY, WILFREDO make any deduction from the wages of his
JAVIER, RONALDO DAVID, BONIFACIO employees, except.
MATUNDAN, NORA MENDOZA, ET AL., 1. In cases where the worker is insured with his
Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS consent by the employer, and the deduction is
COMMISSION, SOLID MILLS, INC., AND/OR PHILIP to recompense the employer for the amount
ANG, Respondents. paid by him as premium on the insurance
2. For union dues, in cases where the right of
FACTS: the worker or his union to check-off has been
recognized by the employer or authorized in
Petitioners are employees of Solid Mills,
writing by the individual worker concerned; and
Inc. Petitioners were allowed by Solid Mills, Inc.
3. In cases where the employer is authorized by
to occupy a property owned by the latter known
law or regulations issued by the Secretary of
as the SMI Village. This was granted by the
Labor and Employment. (Emphasis supplied)
respondents to the petitioners out of liberality
and for convenience of the latter. Solid Mills
The Civil Code provides that the employer is
experience a serious financial losses to which
authorized to withhold wages for debts due:
had force its operation to ceased. The
petitioners then were required to sign a Article 1706. Withholding of the wages, except
memorandum of agreement with release and for a debt due, shall not be made by the
quitclaim before their vacation and sick leave employer.d
benefits, 13th month pay, and separation pay
would be released. Employees who signed the “Debt” in this case refers to any obligation due
memorandum of agreement were considered to from the employee to the employer. It includes
have agreed to vacate SMI Village, and to the any accountability that the employee may have
demolition of the constructed houses inside as to the employer. There is no reason to limit its
scope to uniforms and equipment, as petitioners The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and
would argue. Petitioners do not categorically ruled that respondents were not illegally
deny respondent Solid Mills’ ownership of the dismissed.
property, and they do not claim superior right to
it. What can be gathered from the findings of The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter, finding
the Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations that respondents’ separation from Zytron was
Commission, and the Court of Appeals is that brought about by the execution of the contract
respondent Solid Mills allowed the use of its between Fonterra and A.C. Sicat where the
property for the benefit of petitioners as its parties agreed to absorb Zytron’s personnel,
employees. Petitioners were merely allowed to including respondents.
possess and use it out of respondent Solid Mills’
liberality. The employer may, therefore, The NLRC decision was assailed in a petition
demand the property at will. under Rule 65 before the CA.
G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015 CA held that respondents were illegally
dismissed since Fonterra itself failed to prove
FONTERRA BRANDS PHILS., that their dismissal is lawful. However, the illegal
INC., Petitioner, v. LEONARDO1 LARGADO AND dismissal should be reckoned from the
TEOTIMO ESTRELLADO, Respondents. termination of their supposed employment with
Zytron on June 6, 2006. Furthermore,
Facts: respondents’ transfer to A.C. Sicat is tantamount
to a completely new engagement by another
Petitioner Fonterra Brands Phils., Inc. (Fonterra) employer. Lastly, the termination of their
contracted the services of Zytron Marketing and contract with A.C. Sicat arose from the
Promotions Corp. (Zytron) for the marketing and expiration of their respective contracts with the
promotion of its milk and dairy products. latter. The CA, thus, ruled that Fonterra is liable
Pursuant to the contract, Zytron provided to respondents and ordered the reinstatement
Fonterra with trade merchandising of respondents without loss of seniority rights,
representatives (TMRs), including respondents with full backwages, and other benefits from the
Leonardo Largado (Largado) and time of their illegal dismissal up to the time of
TeotimoEstrellado (Estrellado). their actual reinstatement.
Fonterra sent Zytron a letter terminating its Zytron and Fonterra moved for reconsideration,
promotions contract. Fonterra then entered into but to no avail. Hence, this petition.
an agreement for manpower supply with A.C.
Sicat Marketing and Promotional Services (A.C. Issue:whether or not respondents were illegally
Sicat). Desirous of continuing their work as dismissed. (By zytron and A.C. Sicat)
TMRs, respondents submitted their job
applications with A.C. Sicat, which hired them Held: No.
for a term of five (5) months.
We do not agree with the CA that respondents’
When respondents’ 5-month contracts with A.C. employment with Zytron was illegally
Sicat were about to expire, they allegedly sought terminated.
renewal thereof, but were allegedly refused.
This prompted respondents to file complaints
As correctly held by the Labor Arbiter and the
for illegal dismissal against petitioner, Zytron,
and A.C. Sicat. NLRC, the termination of respondents’
employment with Zytron was brought about by
the cessation of their contracts with the latter. renew their employment contracts with the
We give credence to the Labor Arbiter’s latter, applying with A.C. Sicat, and working as
conclusion that respondents were the ones who the latter’s employees, thereby abandoning
refused to renew their contracts with Zytron, their previous employment with Zytron. Too, it is
and the NLRC’s finding that they themselves well to mention that for obvious reasons,
acquiesced to their transfer to A.C. Sicat. resignation is inconsistent with illegal dismissal.
This being the case, Zytron cannot be said to
By refusing to renew their contracts with Zytron, have illegally dismissed respondents, contrary to
respondents effectively resigned from the latter. the findings of the CA.
Resignation is the voluntary act of employees
who are compelled by personal reasons to whether the termination of respondents’
dissociate themselves from their employment, employment with A.C. Sicat is valid?
done with the intention of relinquishing an We agree with the findings of the CA that the
office, accompanied by the act of abandonment. termination of respondents’ employment with
the latter was simply brought about by the
Here, it is obvious that respondents were no expiration of their employment contracts.
longer interested in continuing their
employment with Zytron. Their voluntary refusal Foremost, respondents were fixed-term
to renew their contracts was brought about by employees. As previously held by this Court,
their desire to continue their assignment in fixed-term employment contracts are not
Fonterra which could not happen in view of the limited, as they are under the present Labor
conclusion of Zytron’s contract with Fonterra. Code, to those by nature seasonal or for specific
Hence, to be able to continue with their projects with predetermined dates of
assignment, they applied for work with A.C. Sicat completion; they also include those to which the
with the hope that they will be able to continue parties by free choice have assigned a specific
rendering services as TMRs at Fonterra since date of termination.11 The determining factor of
A.C. Sicat is Fonterra’s new manpower supplier. such contracts is not the duty of the employee
This fact is even acknowledged by the CA in the but the day certain agreed upon by the parties
assailed Decision where it recognized the reason for the commencement and termination of the
why respondents applied for work at A.C. Sicat. employment relationship.
The CA stated that “[t]o continuously work as
merchandisers of Fonterra products, In the case at bar, it is clear that respondents
[respondents] submitted their job applications were employed by A.C. Sicat as project
to A.C. Sicat xxx.” This is further bolstered by the employees. In their employment contract with
fact that respondents voluntarily complied with the latter, it is clearly stated that “[A.C. Sicat is]
the requirements for them to claim their temporarily employing [respondents] as TMR[s]
corresponding monetary benefits in relation to effective June 6[, 2006] under the following
the cessation of their employment contract with terms and conditions: The need for your service
Zytron. being only for a specific project, your temporary
employment will be for the duration only of said
In short, respondents voluntarily terminated project of our client, namely to promote
their employment with Zytron by refusing to
FONTERRA BRANDS products xxx which is hence, her refusal to obey the transfer order
expected to be finished on or before Nov. 06, was justified. The LA finds Quiñanola was
2006.” illegally dismissed and orders Philippine Japan
Active Carbon Corporation and/or Tokuichi
Satofuka to reinstate her with backwages and
Respondents, by accepting the conditions of the damages.
contract with A.C. Sicat, were well aware of and
Upon appeal to the NLRC, the
even acceded to the condition that their
Commission approved the Labor Arbiter's
employment thereat will end on said pre- decision.
determined date of termination. They cannot
now argue that they were illegally dismissed by
the latter when it refused to renew their ISSUE
contracts after its expiration. This is so since the Was there a constructive dismissal?
non-renewal of their contracts by A.C. Sicat is a
management prerogative, and failure of
HELD
respondents to prove that such was done in bad
faith militates against their contention that they The Supreme Court rules that there was
were illegally dismissed. The expiration of their NO constructive dismissal.
contract with A.C. Sicat simply caused the A constructive discharge is defined as: "A
natural cessation of their fixed-term quitting because continued employment is
employment there at. rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely;
as, an offer involving a demotion in rank and a
diminution in pay." (Alia vs. Salani Una
PHIL. JAPAN ACTIVE CARBON CORP. and Transportation Co., January 29, 1971)
SATOFUKA v. NLRC and QUIÑANOLA In this case, Quiñanola's assignment as
G.R. No. 83239, 08 March 1989, FIRST DIVISION Production Secretary of the Production
(Griño-Aquino, J.) Department was not unreasonable as it did not
involve a demotion in rank (her rank was still
that of a department secretary) nor a change in
FACTS her place of work (the office is in the same
building), nor a diminution in pay, benefits, and
Olga S. Quiñanola employed as Assistant privileges. It did not constitute a constructive
Secretary/Export Coordinator, was promoted to dismissal.
the position of Executive Secretary to the
Executive Vice President and General Manager. It is the employer's prerogative, based
For no apparent reason at all and without prior on its assessment and perception of its
notice to her, she was transferred to the employees' qualifications, aptitudes, and
Production Department as Production Secretary. competence, to move them around in the
Although the transfer did not amount to a various areas of its business operations in order
demotion because her salary and workload to "ascertain where they will function with
remained the same, she believed otherwise so maximum benefit to the company." When an
she rejected the assignment and filed a employee's transfer is not unreasonable, nor
complaint for illegal dismissal. inconvenient, nor prejudicial to him, and it does
not involve a demotion in rank or a diminution
The Labor Arbiter found that the of his salaries, benefits, and other privileges, the
transfer would amount to constructive dismissal
("she was dismissed for unjustified causes")
employee may not complain that it amounts to a The Supreme Court finds Minterbro
constructive dismissal. liable to its employees.
NLRC's decision is affirmed insofar as it Minterbro's inaction on what they allege
orders herein petitioners to reinstate Quiñanola, to be the unexplained abandonment by Del
but she shall be reinstated to her position as Monte of its obligations under the Contract for
Production Secretary of the Production the Use of Pier coupled with petitioners’ belated
Department without loss of seniority rights and action on the damaged condition of the pier
other privileges. caused the absence of available work for the
union members. As Minterbro was responsible
for the lack of work at the pier and,
MINTERBRO, INC. and/or DE CASTRO v. consequently, the layoff of the union members,
NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA MINTERBRO– it is liable for the separation from employment
SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR of the union members on a ground similar to
and/or ABELLANA, et al. retrenchment. This Court has ruled:
G.R. No. 174300, 05 December 2012, FIRST "A lay-off, used interchangeably with
DIVISION (Leonardo-De Castro, J.) "retrenchment," is a recognized
prerogative of management. It is an act
FACTS of the employer of dismissing
Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage employees because of losses in
Service, Inc. (Minterbro) is a domestic operation of a business, lack of work,
corporation managed by De Castro and engaged and considerable reduction on the
in the business of providing arrastre and volume of his business, a right
stevedoring services to its clientele at Port Area, consistently recognized and affirmed by
Sasa, Davao City. Del Monte is their exclusive this Court. The requisites of a valid
client. retrenchment are covered by Article 283
of the Labor Code."
Davao Pilots' Association, Inc. (DPAI)
informed Minterbro of its intention to refrain When a lay-off is temporary, the
from docking vessels at Minterbro’s pier for employment status of the employee is not
security and safety reasons until its docks are deemed terminated, but merely suspended.
repaired or rehabilitated. Minterbro decided to Article 286 of the Labor Code provides, in part,
rehabilitate the pier and on the same day, sent a that the bona fide suspension of the operation
letter to the Department of Labor and of the business or undertaking for a period not
Employment (DOLE) to inform DOLE of exceeding six months does not terminate
Minterbro’s intention to temporarily suspend employment.
arrastre and stevedoring operations. When Minterbro failed to make work
The Union composed of respondents available to the union members for a period of
Manuel Abellana, et al., employees of more than six months by failing to call the
Minterbro, filed a complaint for payment of attention of Del Monte on the latter’s
separation pay against Minterbro and De Castro. obligations under the Contract of Use of Pier
and to undertake a timely rehabilitation of the
ISSUE pier, they are deemed to have constructively
Whether or not the union members/employees dismissed the union members.
were deprived of gainful employment making
Minterbro liable for separation pay
HELD
Begino et. al. Vs ABS-CBN Corporation and Amala Respondents insisted that, petitioners
Villafuerte were hired as talents, to act as reporters and/or
cameramen for designated periods and rates.
FACTS: Although petitioners were inevitably subjected
Respondent ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS- to some degree of control, the same was
CBN) employed respondent Villafuerte as allegedly limited to the imposition of general
Manager. Thru Villafuerte, ABS-CBN engaged the guidelines on conduct and performance, simply
services of petitioners Begino and Del Valle as for the purpose of upholding the standards of
Cameramen/Editors for TV Broadcasting, the company and the strictures of the industry.
Petitioners Sumayao and Llorin were likewise ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an employer-
similarly engaged as reporters. Petitioners were
employee relationship.
tasked with coverage of news items for
subsequent daily airings in respondents’ TV RULING:
Patrol Bicol Program.
Yes, there exist an employer-employee
Claiming that they were regular relationship.
employees of ABS-CBN, petitioners filed a
complaint against before the NLRC. In support of “ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.—
their claims for regularization, underpayment of The provisions of written agreement to the
overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the
service incentive leave pay, damages and oral agreement of the parties, an employment
attorney's fees, petitioners alleged that they shall be deemed to be regular where the
employee has been engaged to perform
performed functions necessary and desirable in
ABS-CBN's business. They averred that they activities which are usually necessary or
were repeatedly hired by respondents for desirable in the usual business or trade of the
ostensible fixed periods and this situation had employer, except where the employment has
hone on for years since TV Patrol Bicol has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking
continuously aired from 1996 onwards. the completion or termination of which has
been determined at the time of the engagement
Respondents argued that, although it of the employee or where the work or service to
occasionally engages in production and be performed is seasonal in nature and the
generates programs thru various means, the employment is for the duration of the season.”
company had allegedly resorted to engaging
An employment shall be deemed to be
independent contractors who offered their
services in relation to a particular program, such casual if it is not covered by the preceding
independent contractors were required to paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who
accomplish Talent Information Forms to has rendered at least one year of service,
facilitate their engagement for and appearance whether such service is continuous or broken,
on designated project days. Respondents argued shall be considered a regular employee with
that the company cannot afford to provide respect to the activity in which he is employed
regular work for talents given the and his employment shall continue while such
unpredictability of viewer. actually exists.
The Court finds that, notwithstanding nature, and the employment is for the duration
the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts, of the season; and
petitioners are regular employees of ABS-CBN.
Time and again, it has been ruled that the test to 4. Casual employees or those who are not
determine whether employment is regular or regular, project, or seasonal employees.
not is the reasonable connection between the • To determine the existence of said
activity performed by the employee in relation relation, case law has consistently applied the
to the business or trade of the employer. As four-fold test, to wit:
cameramen/editors and reporters, petitioners
were undoubtedly performing functions (a) the selection and engagement of the
necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s business employee;
of broadcasting television and radio content.
(b) the payment of wages;
Aside from the fact that said program is a
regular weekday fare of the ABS-CBN the record (c) the power of dismissal; and
shows that, petitioners were continuously re-
hired by respondents over the years. (d) the employer's power to control the
employee on the means and methods by which
It is evident from the foregoing the work is accomplished.
disquisition that petitioners are regular
employees of ABS-CBN. This conclusion is borne Of these criteria, the so-called "control test" is
out by the ineluctable showing that petitioners generally regarded as the most crucial and
perform functions necessary and essential to the determinative indicator of the presence or
business of ABS-CBN which repeatedly absence of an employer-employee relationship.
employed them for a long-running news
program.
Star Paper Corporation, Josephine Ongsitco &
NOTES:
Sebastian Chua, Petitioners vs. Ronaldo D.
Simbol, Wilfreda N. Comia & Lorna A. Estrella,
• 4 kinds of employees contemplated in
Respondents
Art. 280 of the Labor Code:
Facts: Petitioner Corporation has a company
1. Regular employees or those who have policy promulgated in 1995, viz.
been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual 1. New applicants will not be allowed to be hired
if in case he/she has [a] relative, up to [the] 3rd
business or trade of the employer;
degree of relationship, already employed by the
2. Project employees or those whose company.
employment has been fixed for a specific project 2. In case of two of our employees (both singles
or undertaking, the completion or termination [sic], one male and another female) developed a
of which has been determined at the time of the friendly relationship during the course of their
engagement of the employee; employment and then decided to get married,
one of them should resign to preserve the policy
3. Seasonal employees or those who work stated above.
or perform services which are seasonal in
Respondents herein were all regular employees were asked to resign when they married a co-
of the company. Simbol was employed by the employee. The questioned policy may not
company. He met Alma Dayrit, also an employee facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but
of the company, whom he married. On the other it creates a disproportionate effect and under
hand, Comia also married a co-employee, while the disparate impact theory, the only way it
Estrella had an affair with her co- employee. could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is
reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit
Respondents were all dismissed. disproportionate, effect.
Issue: Whether the policy of the employer Thus, for failure of petitioners to present
banning spouses from working in the same undisputed proof of a reasonable business
company violates the rights of the employee necessity, we rule that the questioned policy is
under the Constitution and the Labor Code or is an invalid exercise of management prerogative.
a valid exercise of management prerogative.