LABOR LAW REVIEW

GROUP 11

DIGESTED CASES & DOCTRINES

(#20 and #21)

Submitted by:

Belleza, Aleksei N.
Caballero, Aubrey A.
Esmail, Faruzaima V.
Largo-Vilan, Gwendolyn M.
Punongbayan, Chezanie Chelle L.

Submitted to:

Atty. Abdel Azis U. Metmug

 14 September 2019

20) ARNULF0 M. FERNANDEZ, VS KALOOKANSLAUGHTERHOUSE

INCORPORATED/ERNESTO CUNANAN, G.R. NO. G.R. No. 225075

FACTS:

According to petitioner, he was hired in 1994 as a butcher by Kalookan

Slaughterhouse, Inc. (Kalookan Slaughterhouse), a single proprietorship
owned by respondent Ernesto Cunanan (Cunanan). He claimed that he worked
from Monday to Sunday, from 6:30 P.M. to 7:30 A.M., with a daily wage of
P700.00, which was later reduced to PS00.00. He further claimed that he met
an accident while driving Kalookan Slaughterhouse's truck in December 2013
and that deductions were made from his wages. He questioned these
deductions in July 2014, and thereafter he was treated
unreasonably.Petitioner further claimed that on July 21, 2014, he suffered
from a headache and did not report for work. The next day, however, he was
shocked when he only received P200.00 due to his previous undertime and
was informed that he could no longer report for work due to his old age.

Kalookan Slaughterhouse, on the other hand, asserted that petitioner is an

independent butcher working under its Operation Supervisor, Cirilo Tablit
(Tablit). He received payment based on the number of hogs he butchered and
was only required to be in the slaughterhouse when ~customers brought hogs
to be slaughtered. Kalookan Slaughterhouse alleged that it imposed policies
on the entry to the premises, which applied to employees, dealers, independent
butchers, hog and meat dealers and trainees. According to Kalookan
Slaughterhouse, petitioner violated the policies and he misconstrued the
disallowance to enter the slaughterhouse as an act of dismissal.

LA DECISION

The LA ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed.

The LA found that the requisites of an employer-employee relationship were

established as follows: petitioner was hired by Kalookan Slaughterhouse
through Tablit and petitioner was paid his daily wage for his butchering
services. Kalookan Slaughterhouse also exercised control over the conduct of
petitioner in the performance of his work and implemented policies regulating
his rendition of services. The LA also ruled that Kalookan Slaughterhouse
failed to prove its claim that petitioner was not its employee.
The LA thus found that petitioner was illegally dismissed when he was told on
July 22, 2014 that he could no longer work due to his old age. For the LA, this
was not a just or valid cause to terminate petitioner's employment and it was
an arbitrary and whimsical act of Kalookan Slaughterhouse.

NLRC DECISION

The NLRC reversed the LA decision.

The NLRC ruled that although there was a semblance of employer-employee

relationship as the work of a butcher is necessary and desirable in the usual
trade and business of a slaughterhouse, the facts and circumstances in this
case showed that there was no employer-employee relationship.

The NLR ruled that Petitioner was an independent contractor and not an
employee of Kalookan Slaughterhouse because there was no regular payroll
showing his name and the legal deductions made from his salary. There were
also no pay slips, and the money he received from Tablit showed that he was
an independent butcher and not an employee of Kalookan Slaughterhouse.
The NLRC found that the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Tablit tends to show that
there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and Kalookan
Slaughterhouse.

CA DECISION

The CA affirmed the NLRC decision.

The CA ruled that petitioner's claim of the existence of an employer-employee
relationship is not supported by substantial evidence as he failed to submit
salary vouchers, pay slips, daily work schedule and even a certificate of
withholding tax on compensation income.

The CA also ruled that petitioner failed to disprove the Sinumpaang Salaysay
ofTablit that petitioner was one of the butchers that Tab lit personally hired
and paid when there were too many hogs to be butchered at the
slaughterhouse.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA committed a reversible error in affirming the NLRC decision

and resolution which failed to recognize that there was an employer-employee
relationship between the petitioner and the respondents.

RULING:

The Petition is granted.

The Court finds that the NLRC and the CA committed a grave error and agrees
with the LA.

Petitioner was able to submit an I.D. in addition to the gate passes. The trip
ticket and the log sheets also showed that Kalookan Slaughterhouse engaged
petitioner. These are sufficient to prove that petitioner was engaged by
Kalookan Slaughterhouse. The latter also failed to prove that petitioner's
salaries were paid by Tablit. In fact, Tablit was not shown to possess
substantial capital and investment to have an independent business, be
petitioner's employer and pay his salaries. Other than Tablit's Sinumpaang
Salaysay, no document was presented to show that he paid petitioner's
salaries.

Even worse for Kalookan Slaughterhouse, while Tablit claimed to be

petitioner's employer, he also admitted that he did not exercise any control
over the means and methods of petitioner in rendering butchering services. If
he was indeed petitioner's employer, he should have control over petitioner's
means and methods for doing his job.
Case No. 20 Doctrines:

1. ) Four-fold test of employment relationship.

“To determine the existense of an employer-employee relationship, four

(4) elements generally nee to be considered, namely:

a. The selection and engagemet of the employee;

b. The payment of wages;

c. The power of dismissal; and

d. The power to control the employees’ conduct”1.

2. ) Illegal dismissal.

“Article 298(283). An employer may also terminate the employment of

any employee..xxx… by serving a written notice on the workers and the

1
David v Macasio, 738 Phil. 293, 307 (2014)
 Ministry of Labor and employment at least one (1) month before the
intended date thereof.xxx”2

3. ) Allegation not specifically denied is deemed admitted.

“xxx By their silence petitioner are deemed to have admitted the same.
Setion 2 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court which supplements the NLRC
rules, provides that an allegation not specifically denied is deemed
admitted”3

4. ) Petitioner is entitled to money claims.

“An employee who is dismissed without just cause is entitled to any or

all of the following:

a. Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights;

b. In lieu of reinstatement, an employee may be given separation pay of

one month pay for every year of service4;

c. Full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits of their

monetary equivalent from the time compensation was withheld upto the
reinstatement;56 and

d. Damages if dismissal was done in bad faith”7

2
Article 298(283) of the LAbor Code of the Philippines.

3
Masonic Contractor, Inc. V MAdjos, supra note 47, at 744, citations omitted

4
Golden Ace Builders, et.al. v. Jose Talde, May 5, 2000, GR No. 187200

5
Textile Miles, Inc. v NLRC, 217 SCRA 237 (1993)

6
Indophil Acrylic Mfg. Corporation v NLRC, 226 SCRA 723 (1993)

7
Aurora Land Project Corp. v NLRC, 266 SCRA 48
21) Julita M. Aldovino, et al. Vs. Gold and Green Manpower Management
and Development Services, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 200811. June 19, 2019

Facts:

Aldovino and her co-applicants applied for work in Taiwan at at Gold and
Green Manpower Management and Development Services, Inc. (Gold and
Green Manpower), a local manning agency whose foreign principal is Sage
International Development Company, Ltd. (Sage Intemational). Their respective
employment contracts provided an eight (8)-hour working day, a fixed monthly
salary, and entitlement to overtime pay, among others.

During their employment, Aldovino and her co-workers toiled from 8:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. for six (6) days a week. At times, they were forced to work on
Sundays without any overtime premium. 9 Because they were paid on a piece-
rate basis, they received less than the fixed monthly salary stipulated in their
original contract.

Based on the Compromise Agreement, Aldovino and her co-workers, except

::->e Jesus, executed an Affidavit of Quitclaim and Release. 15 On July 28,
2C19, all of them returned to the Philippines.16 They eventually filed before
the Labor Arbiter a case for illegal termination, underpayment of salaries,
human trafficking, illegal signing of papers, 17 and other money claims such
as overtime pay, return of placement fees, and moral and exemplary damages.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Compromise Agreement barred all other claims against
respondents Gold and Green Manpower Management and Development
Services, Inc. and Sage International Development Company, Ltd., and Alberto
C. Alvina
2. whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed and, consequently,
entitled to the reimbursement of their placement fees and payment of moral
and exemplary damages and attorney's fees

RULING:

Respondents claim that the Compromise Agreement barred petitioners from

holding them liable for claims. This is outright erroneous. Quitclaims do not
bar employees from filing labor complaints and demanding benefits to which
they are legally entitled. 48 They are "ineffective in barring recovery of the full
measure of a worker's rights, and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does
not amount to estoppel. "49 The law does not recognize agreements that result
in compensation less than what is mandated by law. These quitclaims do not
prevent employees from subsequently claiming benefits to which they are
legally entitled.

This argument is also untenable. Under the Labor Code, employers may only
terminate employment for a just or authorized cause and after complying with
procedural due process requirements. Articles 297 and 300 of the Labor Code
enumerate the causes of employment termination either by employers or
employees.

In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof that employees were validly
dismissed rests on the employers. Failure to discharge this burden means that
the dismissal is illegal.

Furthermore, petitioners were not accorded due process. A valid dismissal

must comply with substantive and procedural due process: there must be a
valid cause and a valid procedure. The employer must comply with the two (2)-
notice requirement, while the employee must be given an opportunity to be
heard. 56 Here, petitioners were only verbally dismissed, without any notice
given or having been informed of any just cause for their dismissal.
Moreover, petitioners' employment contracts were unilaterally terminated.
After their meeting before the Bureau of Labor, respondents told petitioners
that they were no longer employed. As the Court of Appeals noted, respondents
did not refute petitioners' narration that they were immediately escorted back
to the factory, ordered to pack their possessions, and were left at a train
station. 59 Petitioners were forced to stay in shelters for months without any
means of livelihood. Worse, they were deprived of due process when they were
terminated without any notice or opportunity to be heard.

Being deprived of their hard-earned salaries and, eventually, of their

employment, caused petitioners mental anguish, wounded feelings, and
serious anxiety. The award of moral damages is but appropriate.
Consequently, the award of exemplary damages is necessary to deter future
employers from committing the same acts.

22) CASE DOCTRINES

 1. We follow the lex loci contractus principle, which means that the law of
the place where the contract is executed governs the contract

2. Security of Tenure, Art. 294

"Article 294 [279]. Security of Tenure. - All employees irrespective of

employment status or position shall not be dismissed without cause and
due process. A dismissal without cause and due process is illegal dismissal
and the employee shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and benefits.

3. Waivers and quit claims executed by employees are generally frowned

upon for being contrary to public policy8

4. Sec. 3 of Article 13 of the 1987 of the Constitution

“CONST., art. XIII, sec. 3 provides: SECTION 3. The State shall

afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with
law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of
8
Land and Housing Development Corporation v. Esquillo

Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v National Labor Relations Commission

Article 294 [279]. Security of Tenure of the Labor Code of the Philippines
 work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided bylaw. The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use
of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and
shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial
peace. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
employers, recognizing the right oflabor to its just share in the fruits of
production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on
investments, and to expansion and growth”9

5. 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 Constitution10

6. A statute declared unconstitutional "confers no rights; it imposes no

duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has
not been passed at all11"

7. Termination by employer.

“ARTICLE 297. [282] Termination by employer. -An employer may

terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious
misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders
of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross
and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful
breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or
duly authorized representative; ( d) Commission of a crime or offense by
the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate

9
Sec. 3 of Article 13 of the 1987 of the Constitution

10
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles

11
Yap v. Thenamaris Ship's Management, 664 Phil. 614, 627 (201 1) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].
 member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and ( e)
Other causes analogous to the foregoing.”12

8. Termination by employee.

“ARTICLE 300. [285] Termination by employee. -(a) An employee

may terminate without just cause the employee-employer relationship
by serving a written notice on the employer at least one ( 1) month in
advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served ;-r.ay
hold the employee liable for damages. (b) An employee may put an end
to the relationship without serving any notice on the employer for any
of the following just causes:

1. Serious insult by the employer or his representative on the honor

and person of the employee;

2. Inhuman and unbearable treatment accorded the employee by

the employer or his representative;

3. Commission of a crime or offense by the employer or his

representative against the person of the employee or any of the
immediate members of his family; and

4. Other causes analogous to any of the foregoing 13

9. In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof that employees were

validly dismissed rests on the employers. Failure to discharge this burden
means that the dismissal is illegal14

12
Article 297 of the LAbor Code of the Philippines

13
ARTICLE 300. [285] Termination by employee

14
Industrial Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. De Vera, 782 Phil. 230, 252 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]