Jenny Lyn O.

Mahinay
Law 206-1 C - Labor Law I
Atty. Francis U. Ku
Assignment 01 of 02 - For: August 7, 2020

Definition of Labor Standards

Labor Standards, as defined more specifically by jurisprudence, are the
minimum requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules and regulations
relating to wages, hours of work, cost-of-living allowance, and other
monetary and welfare benefits, including occupational, safety, and health
standards.

Definition of Social Justice

According to Dr. Jose P. Laurel in the case of Calalang v. Williams, 706 Phil.
726 [1940], Social Justice is “neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of
social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and
objectivity secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice
means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
component elements of society through the maintenance of proper economic
and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the
community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally
justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers
underlying the existence of all governments, on the time-honored principle
of salus populi est suprema lex.”

Case Digest:
Maximo Calalang v. Williams
(G.R. No. 47800; Dec. 2, 1940)

Facts:

This case is a petition for a writ of prohibition against the Chairman of the
National Traffic Commission (NTC), the Director of Public Works, the Acting
Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the Mayor of the City of
Manila, and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila.

It has been alleged in the petition that:

✔ The NTC resolved in its resolution to recommend that the animal-drawn
vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario Street extending from
 Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmariñas Street, from 7:30am to
12:30pm and from 1:30pm to 5:30pm; and along Rizal Avenue extending
from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street, from
7:00am to 11:pm, for one year from the date of the opening of the
Colgante Bridge to traffic.
✔ That NTC recommended to the Director of Public Works and the the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications the adoption of the
measure proposed in the resolution mentioned above, this in pursuance
to the the provisions of the Commonwealth Act No. 548 which authorizes
the Director, with the approval of the Secretary, to enact rules and
regulations to regulate the use of national roads and control the traffic.
✔ Thus, the rules and regulations in line with the recommendation made
by NTC have been enacted and enforced.

The petitioner contended that the Commonwealth Act No. 548 is

unconstitutional because it comprises an undue delegation of legislative
power.

Issues:

a) Whether or not the rules and regulations enacted cause negatively on

the constitutional law specifically the promotion of social justice to
insure the well-being and security of all the people.

b) Whether or not the rules and regulations enacted constitute unlawful

interference with legitimate business of trade and abridge the right to
personal liberty and freedom of locomotion.

c) Whether or not Commonwealth Act No. 548 is unconstitutional in terms

of the undue delegation of legislative power.

Held:

a) The SC held that the rules and regulations enacted aims to promote safe
transit and to avoid obstructions on national roads. This is in the
interest and convenience of the public, inspired by the desire to relieve
 congestion of traffic. Hence, it promotes public welfare which is a goal of
the State. One should keep it in mind that in terms of promoting social
justice , one should observe not through the mistaken sympathy towards
a certain group, it should be founded on the recognition of the needs of
the different groups. The protection of the different groups must be fair.

b) The SC held that the rules and regulations were valid; exercising police
power in the interest of the public’s welfare.

c) Although the legislature cannot delegate the power to make the law, it
can enact/create a law that will delegate a power to determine some fact.
The denial of the fact would mean hindering the activities of the
government.

Pre-Employment /Recruitment and Placements

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines states that “Recruitment
and placement” refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or
abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which,
in any manner, offers or promise for a fee employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
Jenny Lyn O. Mahinay
Law 206-1 C - Labor Law I
Atty. Francis U. Ku
Assignment 02 of 02 - For: August 7, 2020

Cases Digest:

Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services

(March 24, 2009; G.R. 167614)

Facts:

This case is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
assailing the decision and resolution made by the Court of Appeals (CA);
entreating the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the 5th paragraph
of Section 10 of the Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, to wit:

Section 10. Money claims - … In case of termination of overseas employment

without just, valid, or unauthorized case as defined by law or contract, the
workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement if his placement fee with
interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months of every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.

Serrano, the petitioner is a seafarer employed as Chief Officer by Gallant

Maritime Services Inc and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc under a 12-month
contract. On the date of his departure, he was forced to accept a
downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer with the
assurance from the respondents that he would be made Chief Officer by the
end of next month.

The respondent failed to deliver their promise, which is why the petitioner
refused to stay as Second Officer and was repatriated to the Philippines
thereafter. At the time of repatriation, the petitioner had served only 2
months and 7 days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of 9 month
and 23 days.
The petitioner filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter (LA) against the
respondents for constructive dismissal and for payment of his money
claims. The LA rendered a decision declaring the dismissal of the petitioner
as illegal and awarding him monetary benefits. The claims of the
complainant for moral and exemplary damages however are dismissed for
lack of merit.

The respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission

(NLRC) to question the finding of the LA as to the illegal dismissal. Petitioner
also appealed to the NLRC that LA erred in not applying the ruling of the
Court in Triple Integrated Service, Inc. v. NLRC that in case of illegal
dismissal, OFWs should be entitled to their salaries for the unexpired
portion of their contracts.

On NLRC’s decision it modified LA’s decision, correcting the computation of

the lump-sum salary awarded to petitioners by reducing the applicable
salary rate because R.A. No. 8042 “does not provide for the award of
overtime pay, which should have been proven to have been actually
performed, and for a vacation leave pay”.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, questioning the

constitutionality of the subject clause. The said motion was denied.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. It was initially
dismissed due to technicality, but eventually gave due course to it. CA
affirmed NLRC’s ruling but skirted the constitutional issue.

Petitioner contends that the subject clause is unconstitutional because it

unduly impairs the freedom of OFWs to negotiate for and stipulate in their
overseas employment contracts a determinate employment period and a
fixed salary package. Also, it seems that the said subject clause impinges on
the equal protection clause, for it treats OFWs differently from local workers.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) pointed out that the provisions of
R.A. No. 80422 which took effect in 1995 could not have impaired
petitioner's 1998 employment contract. The OSG added that there is a
reasonable and valid basis to differentiate OFWs from local workers; they
differ in terms of the nature of their employment, such that their rights to
monetary benefits must necessarily be treated differently. Therefore the
provision does not violate the equal protection clause nor Article II Section
18 of the Constitution.

OFWs can never acquire regular employment status unlike local workers.
Hence, the OSG assumes that there are certain rights and privileges that
were exclusive to local workers only.

Issues:

a) Whether or not Serrano is entitled to the salaries equivalent of three

months of the unexpired portion or the salaries equivalent of the entire 9
months and 23 days left of his employment contract including overtime
pay and holiday pay.
b) Whether or not Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 8402 is Constitutional on the
violation of Non-impairment Clause and on the violation of the Equal
Protection Clause and the Right of an Individual to Due Process.

Held:

a) Serrano is deemed entitled to his salaries for the entire unexpired period,
however his overtime and leave pay were not included because there is
no evidence that could show that he performed work during those
periods. Salary is understood as the basic wage; Overtime pay is the
compensation for all work performed in excess of the regular eight
hours; and Holiday pay is the compensation for any work performed on
designated rest days and holidays.

b)

Violation of Non-Impairment Clause:

No. The provision does not violate the principle of non-impairment of

contract for the law preceding the contract, and as a general rule - laws
operate prospectively.

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Right of an Individual to

Due Process:
Prior to the enactment of R.A. 8042, all OFWs who were illegally terminated
were subjected to a uniform rule of monetary benefits computation - which
is the basic salary times the entire unexpired portion of their employment.
However, when the R.A. 8042 was enacted, the illegally dismissed employees
with unexpired portions of 1 year or more are now singled out and subjected
to the disadvantageous monetary award of 3 months of their unexpired
portion.

Under the Constitution, Filipino workers are protected and afforded certain
rights which are subject to the inherent power of Congress to incorporate a
system of classification into its legislation.

The subject clause was declared unconstitutional for the Court to have
reasoned that since the same had deprived Serrano of property and money
benefits without an existing valid and definitive governmental purpose, it
violated not only Serrano’s right to equal protection but as well as his right
to substantive due process under (Section1, Art. III of the Constitution).
Consequently it entitles Serrano to his salaries for the entire unexpired
period.

Addition:
✔ Discuss the source of authority of the state to protect seafarers

The source of authority of the State to protect seafarers is no less than the
1987 Constitution.

Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the law.

Article II Section 18 and Article XIII Section 3 concord all members of the labor
sector, without distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of their
rights and welfare.

✔ Discuss the need to protect workers and eliminate discrimination

To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the constitutional

provisions would lead to economic security. All monetary benefits should be
equally enjoyed by workers of similar category, while all monetary
obligations should be borne by them in equal degree; none should be denied
the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the burden
imposed on, others in like circumstances.

✔ Who bears the burden of evidence in proving some labor standards

claims?
The Supreme Court rules that employers bear the burden of evidence in
proving some labor standard claims.

Tangga-an v. Phil. Transmarine

(March 13, 2013)

Facts:

This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution
made by the Court of Appeals. It seeks modification of the decision and
assailed the resolution which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Tangga-an alleged that he entered into an overseas employment contract

with Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc (PTC) for and on behalf of its
foreign employer, the Universe Tankship Delaware, LLC. Per the employment
contract, Tangga-an was to be employed for a period of 6 months as chief
engineer of the vessel - S.S. “Kure”.

The respondent terminated the petitioner’s services and repatriated him to

the Philippines due to unsatisfactory performance. Hence, this complaint.

The petitioner filed for a complaint against the respondent for illegal
dismissal invoking that he should be paid of salaries for the unexpired
portion of his contract, leave pay, exemplary and moral damages, attorney’s
fee and interest.

The Labor Arbiter (LA), on its decision, rendered that Tangga-am was
illegally dismissed. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed
the decision of the LA, dismissing the respondent’s appeal due to lack of
merit.
Respondent moved for reconsideration but was then denied by the NLRC.

Respondent went up to CA to file a petition for Certiorari seeking to annul

the Decision of the NLRC, of which the CA partially granted. The CA adhered
to the finding of illegal dismissal, but on the subject of monetary awards, the
CA considered only petitioner’s monthly basic salary. It likewise held that
petitioner’s “unexpired portion of contract” should only be 3 months
pursuant to Section 10 of RA 8042.

Issues:

a) Whether or not the petitioner’s “unexpired portion of contract” should

only be 3 months pursuant to Section 10 of RA 8042.

Held:

a) It is already settled in this case that the petitioner was illegally

dismissed. This resulted to his wages as well as allowances were
withheld without valid and legal basis.

As held in Marsaman Manning Agency Inc v NLRC, involving Section 10 of

RA 8042, an illegally dismissed overseas employee is not entitled to 3
months salary only. Section 10 clearly shows that the choice of which
amount to award an illegally dismissed overseas worker is applied only to
contracts with a period of 1 year or more.

Article 279 of the Labor Code mandates that the full backwages of an
employee shall be inclusive of allowances and other benefits of their
monetary equivalent. Employer has the obligation to to pay an illegally
dismissed employee the whole amount of the salaries or wages, plus other
benefits.

Which is why the SC hereby granted the petitioner’s petition declaring

Tangga-an to be entitled to back salaries for the unexpired portion his
contract, inclusive of vacation leave pay and tonnage bonus.