1. Apprenticeship agreement; validity.

 The apprenticeship agreements did not indicate the

trade or occupation in which the apprentice would be trained; neither was the
apprenticeship program approved by the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA). These were defective as they were executed in violation of the law
and the rules. Moreover, with the expiration of the first agreement and the retention of the
employees, the employer, to all intents and purposes, recognized the completion of their
training and their acquisition of a regular employee status. To foist upon them the second
apprenticeship agreement for a second skill which was not even mentioned in the
agreement itself, is a violation of the Labor Code’s implementing rules and is an act
manifestly unfair to the employees. Atlanta Industries, Inc. and/or Robert Chan vs.
Aprilito R. Sebolino, et al., G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011.

2. Complaint; reinstatement. Petitioners question the order to reinstate respondents to their

former positions, considering that the issue of reinstatement was never brought up before
the Court of Appeals and respondents never questioned the award of separation pay to
them. Section 2 (c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading shall specify
the relief sought, but may add a general prayer for such further or other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable. Under this rule, a court can grant the relief warranted by the
allegation and the evidence even if it is not specifically sought by the injured party; the
inclusion of a general prayer may justify the grant of a remedy different from or in
addition to the specific remedy sought, if the facts alleged in the complaint and the
evidence introduced so warrant. The prayer in the complaint for other reliefs equitable
and just in the premises justifies the grant of a relief not otherwise specifically prayed for.
Therefore, the court may grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no
such relief is prayed for. In the instant case, aside from their specific prayer for
reinstatement, respondents, in their separate complaints, prayed for such reliefs which are
deemed just and equitable. Prince Transport, Inc. and Mr. Renato Claros vs. Diosdado
Garcia, et al.,  G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011.

3. Collection of accrued wages; two-fold test. After the Labor Arbiter’s decision is reversed
by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages, if it
is shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault
on the part of the employer.  The two-fold test in determining whether an employee is
barred from recovering his accrued wages requires that — (1) there must be actual delay
or that the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal;
and (2) the delay must not be due to the employer’s unjustified act or omission.  If the
delay is due to the employer’s unjustified refusal, the employer may still be required to
pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. Social
Security System vs. Efren Capada, et al., G.R. No. 168501, January 31, 2011.

4. Disciplinary measures; management prerogative. The policy of suspending drivers

pending payment of arrears in their boundary obligations is reasonable. It is
acknowledged that an employer has free rein and enjoys a wide latitude of discretion to
regulate all aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline on his
employees and to impose penalties, including dismissal, if warranted, upon erring
employees. This is a management prerogative. Indeed, the manner in which
management conducts its own affairs to achieve its purpose is within the management’s
discretion.  The only limitation on the exercise of management prerogative is that the
policies, rules, and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always
be fair and reasonable, and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, commensurate
to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. Primo E. Caong, Jr., et al. vs.
Avelino Regualos, G.R. No. 179428, January 26, 2011.
5. Dismissal; constructive dismissal. Respondent was suspended for one year after being
charged with and found liable for AWOL. After serving her suspension, respondent was
allowed to return to work. Respondent cannot be considered to have been constructively
dismissed by the petitioner during her period of suspension. Constructive dismissal
occurs when there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as when there is a demotion in rank or diminution
in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee leaving the latter with no other option but to quit. In this case,
there was no cessation of employment relations between the parties. It is unrefuted that
respondent promptly resumed teaching at the university right after the expiration of the
suspension period. In other words, respondent never quit. Hence, she cannot claim to
have been left with no choice but to quit, a crucial element in a finding of constructive
dismissal. The University of the Immaculate Conception, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.
181146, January 26, 2011.

6. Dismissal; due process. Respondent employee reported to the petitioner employer the loss
of cash which she placed inside the company locker. Immediately, petitioner ordered that
she be strip-searched by the company guards. However, the search on her and her
personal belongings yielded nothing. The petitioner also reported the matter to the police
and requested the Prosecutor’s Office for an inquest. Respondent was constrained to
spend two weeks in jail for failure to immediately post bail. The Court ruled that
petitioners failed to accord respondent substantive and procedural due process. Article
277(b) of the Labor Code mandates that subject to the constitutional right of workers to
security of tenure and their right to be protected against dismissal, except for just and
authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Article 283 of
the same Code, the employer shall furnish the worker, whose employment is sought to be
terminated, a written notice containing a statement  of the causes of termination, and shall
afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance
of a representative if he so desires, in accordance with company rules and regulations
pursuant to the guidelines set by the Department of Labor and Employment. The due
process requirements under the Labor Code are mandatory and may not be supplanted by
police investigation or court proceedings. The criminal aspect of the case is considered
independent of the administrative aspect. Thus, employers should not rely solely on the
findings of the Prosecutor’s Office. They are mandated to conduct their own separate
investigation, and to accord the employee every opportunity to defend
himself. Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. and/or Jess Manuel vs. Irene
R. Ranchez,  G.R. No. 177937, January 19, 2011.

7. Dismissal; neglect of duty. Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal, must be both

gross and habitual.  Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one’s
duties.  Habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of
time, depending upon the circumstances.  A single or isolated act of negligence does not
constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee. Hospital Management Services
– Medical Center Manila vs. Hospital Management Services, Inc. – Medical Center
Manila Employees Association-AFW.,  G.R. No. 176287, January 31, 2011.

8. Dismissal; negligence in patient management. Negligence is defined as the failure to

exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a
similar situation.  The Court emphasizes that the nature of the business of a hospital
requires a higher degree of caution and exacting standard of diligence in patient
 management and health care as what is involved are lives of patients who seek urgent
medical assistance.  An act or omission that falls short of the required degree of care and
diligence amounts to serious misconduct which constitutes a sufficient ground for
dismissal. Hospital Management Services – Medical Center Manila vs. Hospital
Management Services, Inc. – Medical Center Manila Employees Association-AFW.,  G.R.
No. 176287, January 31, 2011.

9. Employee benefits; compensable illness. The degree of proof required under P.D. 626 is
merely substantial evidence, which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.  Accordingly, the claimant must show,
at least by substantial evidence that the development of the disease was brought about
largely by the conditions present in the nature of the job.  What the law requires is a
reasonable work connection, not a direct causal relation. Alexander B. Gatus vs. Social
Security System, G.R. No. 174725, January 26, 2011.

10. Employer-employee relationship; jeepney driver. It is already settled that the relationship
between jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the boundary system is that
of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. The fact that the drivers do not receive
fixed wages but only get the amount in excess of the so-called “boundary” that they pay
to the owner/operator is not sufficient to negate the relationship between them as
employer and employee. Primo E. Caong, Jr., et al. vs. Avelino Regualos, G.R. No.
179428, January 26, 2011.

11. Employer-employee relationship; primary element. Control over the performance of the

task of one providing service – both with respect to the means and manner, and the
results of the service – is the primary element in determining whether an employment
relationship exists. Petitioner asserts that his employer Manulife’s control over him was
demonstrated (1) when it set the objectives and sales targets regarding production,
recruitment and training programs; and (2) when it prescribed the Code of Conduct for
Agents and the Manulife Financial Code of Conduct to govern his activities. However,
the court ruled that all these appear to speak of control by the insurance company over its
agents.  There are built-in elements of control specific to an insurance agency, which do
not amount to the elements of control that characterize an employment relationship
governed by the Labor Code.  They are, however, controls aimed only at specific results
in undertaking an insurance agency, and are, in fact, parameters set by law in defining an
insurance agency and the attendant duties and responsibilities an insurance agent must
observe and undertake. They do not reach the level of control into the means and manner
of doing an assigned task that invariably characterizes an employment relationship as
defined by labor law.  To reiterate, guidelines indicative of labor law “control” do not
merely relate to the mutually desirable result intended by the contractual relationship;
they must have the nature of dictating the means and methods to be employed in attaining
the result. Petitioner is an insurance agent not an employee. Gregorio V. Tongko vs. The
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc. and Renato A. Vergel de Dios, G.R. No.
167622, January 25, 2011.

12. Employer-employee relationship; probationary employment. A probationary employee,

like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure.  However, in cases of probationary
employment, aside from just or authorized causes of termination, an additional ground is
provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary employee may also
be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable
 standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of the engagement.
Thus, the services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be
terminated for any of the following:  (1) a just or (2) an authorized cause; and  (3) when
he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards
prescribed by the employer. Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. and/or
Jess Manuel vs. Irene R. Ranchez, G.R. No. 177937, January 19, 2011.

13. Employer-employee relationship; regular employment. The respondent employees were

already rendering service to the company when they were made to undergo
apprenticeship.  The respondent were regular employees because they occupied positions
such as machine operator, scaleman and extruder operator – tasks that are usually
necessary and desirable in petitioner employer’s usual business or trade as manufacturer
of plastic building materials. These tasks and their nature characterized the respondents
as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code.  Thus, when they were
dismissed without just or authorized cause, without notice, and without the opportunity to
be heard, their dismissal was illegal under the law. Atlanta Industries, Inc. and/or Robert
Chan vs.   Aprilito R. Sebolino, et al.,  G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011.

14. Illegal dismissal; strained relations. Article 279 of the Labor Code provides that an
employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges, to full backwages, inclusive of allowances,
and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his
compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
However, due to the strained relations of the parties, the payment of separation pay has
been considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement, when the latter option is no
longer desirable or viable.  On the one hand, such payment liberates the employee from
what could be a highly oppressive work environment.  On the other, the payment releases
the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a
worker it could no longer trust. Thus, as an illegally or constructively dismissed
employee, respondent is entitled to: (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay,
if reinstatement is no longer viable; and (2) backwages. These two reliefs are separate
and distinct from each other and are awarded conjunctively. Robinsons
Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp. and/or Jess Manuel vs. Irene R. Ranchez,  G.R.
No. 177937, January 19, 2011.

15. Illegal recruitment; elements. Recruitment and placement refers to the 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. When a person or entity, in any manner, offers or promises for a
fee employment to two or more persons, that person or entity shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement. Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that
recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed
illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal recruitment is committed against
three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is deemed committed in large
scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of economic
sabotage. But 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.  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. People of the Philippines vs. Teresita “Tessie” Laogo, G.R. No. 176264,
January 10, 2011.
16. Illegal dismissal; execution of waiver and quitclaim.  An employee’s execution of a final
settlement and receipt of amounts agreed upon does not foreclose his right to pursue a
claim for illegal dismissal.   Thus, an employee illegally retrenched is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and privileges, as well as to payment of full
backwages from the time of her separation until actual reinstatement, less the amount
which he/she received as retrenchment pay. Bernadeth Londonio and Joan Corcoro vs.
Bio Research, Inc. and Wilson Y. Ang, G.R. No. 191459, January 17, 2011.

17. Jurisdiction; labor arbiter. Petitioner was removed from his position as a manager through
a Board Resolution. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor
arbiter. Respondents claimed that petitioner is both a stockholder and a corporate officer
of respondent corporation, hence, his action against respondents is an intra-corporate
controversy over which the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction.  The Court ruled that this is
not an intra-corporate controversy but a labor case cognizable by the labor arbiter. To
determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy that is to be heard and
decided by the branches of the RTC specifically designated by the Court to try and decide
such cases, two tests must be applied: (a) the status or relationship test, and (2) the nature
of the controversy test. The first test requires that the controversy arise out of intra-
corporate or partnership relations among the stockholders, members or associates of the
corporation, partnership or association, between any or all of them and the corporation,
partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates;
between such corporation, partnership, or association and the public or between such
corporation, partnership, or association and the State insofar as it concerns its franchise,
license or permit to operate.  The second test requires that the dispute among the parties
be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation.  The Court in this case
held that petitioner is not a corporate officer because he was not validly appointed by the
Board, thus, failing the relationship test, and that this is a case of employment termination
which is a labor controversy and not an intra-corporate dispute, thus failing the nature of
the controversy test. Renato Real vs. Sangu Philippines, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 168757.
January 19, 2011.

18. Jurisdiction; labor dispute. Article 217 of the Labor Code states that unfair labor practices
and termination disputes fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter. As an exception, under Article 262 the Voluntary Arbitrator, upon agreement of
the parties, shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor
practices and bargaining deadlocks. For the exception to apply, there must be agreement
between the parties clearly conferring jurisdiction to the voluntary arbitrator. Such
agreement may be stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement. However, in the
absence of a collective bargaining agreement, it is enough that there is evidence on record
showing the parties have agreed to resort to voluntary arbitration. The University of the
Immaculate Conception, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 181146, January 26, 2011.

19. NLRC; factual findings. Factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have
acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only
respect but even finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence, i.e., the
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion. But these findings are not infallible. When there is a showing that they were
arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, they may be examined by
the courts.  The CA can grant the petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its
assailed decision or resolution, made a factual finding not supported by substantial
 evidence. Thus, it is within the jurisdiction of the CA to review the findings of the
NLRC. Prince Transport, Inc. and Mr. Renato Claros vs. Diosdado Garcia, et al.,  G.R.
No. 167291, January 12, 2011.

20. Petition; certificate of non-forum shopping. While the general rule is that the certificate
of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and the signature of
only one of them is insufficient, the Court has stressed that the rules on forum shopping,
which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice,
should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
legitimate objective. Strict compliance with the provision regarding the certificate of non-
forum shopping underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be
altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. It does not,
however, prohibit substantial compliance therewith under justifiable circumstances,
considering especially that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. In a number of
cases, the Court has consistently held that when all the petitioners share a common
interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of
them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the
rules. Prince Transport, Inc. and Mr. Renato Claros vs. Diosdado Garcia, et al.,  G.R.
No. 167291, January 12, 2011.

21. Petition; failure to attach documents. The respondent workers sought that the petition be
dismissed outright for the petitioners’ failure to attach to the petition a copy of the
Production and Work Schedule and a copy of the compromise agreement allegedly
entered into — material portions of the record that should accompany and support the
petition, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In Mariners Polytechnic
Colleges Foundation, Inc. v. Arturo J. Garchitorena the Court held that the phrase “of
the pleadings and other material portions of the record xxx as would support the
allegation of the petition clearly contemplates the exercise of discretion on the part of the
petitioner in the selection of documents that are deemed to be relevant to the petition. The
crucial issue to consider then is whether or not the documents accompanying the petition
sufficiently supported the allegations therein.”  The failure to attach copy of the subject
documents is not fatal as the challenged CA decision clearly summarized the labor
tribunal’s rulings. Atlanta Industries, Inc. and/or Robert Chan vs.  Aprilito R. Sebolino,
et al.,  G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011.

22. Petition; verification. The verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with

when some of the parties who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear
to the truth of the allegations in the petition had signed the same. Such verification is
deemed a sufficient assurance that the matters alleged in the petition have been made in
good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative. In any case, the settled rule
is that a pleading which is required by the Rules of Court to be verified, may be given
due course even without a verification if the circumstances warrant the suspension of the
rules in the interest of justice. Indeed, the absence of a verification is not jurisdictional,
but only a formal defect, which does not of itself justify a court in refusing to allow and
act on a case. Hence, the failure of some of the respondents to sign the verification
attached to their Memorandum of Appeal filed with the NLRC is not fatal to their cause
of action. Prince Transport, Inc. and Mr. Renato Claros vs. Diosdado Garcia, et
al., G.R. No. 167291, January 12, 2011.
23. Regional director; review of decision. Petitioner appealed an adverse decision to the
BLR. BLR Director inhibited himself from the case because he had been a former
counsel of respondent. In view of the inhibition, DOLE Secretary took cognizance of the
appeal. Jurisdiction to review the decision of the Regional Director lies with the BLR.
Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court, it remains with it until the full termination of
the case. Thus, jurisdiction remained with the BLR despite the BLR Director’s inhibition.
When the DOLE Secretary resolved the appeal, she merely stepped into the shoes of the
BLR Director and performed a function that the latter could not himself perform. She did
so pursuant to her power of supervision and control over the BLR. The Heritage Hotel
Manila, acting through its owner, Grand Plaza Hotel, Corp. vs. National Union of
Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila
Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC),  G.R. No. 178296, January 12, 2011.

24. Union registration; cancellation. The amendment introduced by RA 9481 sought to

strengthen the workers’ right to self-organization and enhance the Philippines’
compliance with its international obligations as embodied in the International Labour
Organization (ILO) Convention No. 87, pertaining to the non-dissolution of workers’
organizations by administrative authority. ILO Convention No. 87 provides that
“workers’ and employers’ organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended
by administrative authority.” The ILO has expressed the opinion that the cancellation of
union registration by the registrar of labor unions, which in our case is the BLR, is
tantamount to dissolution of the organization by administrative authority when such
measure would give rise to the loss of legal personality of the union or loss of advantages
necessary for it to carry out its activities, which is true in our jurisdiction. Although the
ILO has allowed such measure to be taken, provided that judicial safeguards are in
place, i.e., the right to appeal to a judicial body, it has nonetheless reminded its members
that dissolution of a union, and cancellation of registration for that matter, involve serious
consequences for occupational representation. It has, therefore, deemed it preferable if
such actions were to be taken only as a last resort and after exhausting other possibilities
with less serious effects on the organization. It is undisputed that appellee failed to
submit its annual financial reports and list of individual members in accordance with
Article 239 of the Labor Code. However, the existence of this ground should not
necessarily lead to the cancellation of union registration. At any rate, the Court in this
case took note of the fact that on 19 May 2000, appellee had submitted its financial
statement for the years 1996-1999. With this submission, appellee has substantially
complied with its duty to submit its financial report for the said period. The Heritage
Hotel Manila, acting through its owner, Grand Plaza Hotel, Corp. vs. National Union of
Workers in the Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries-Heritage Hotel Manila
Supervisors Chapter (NUWHRAIN-HHMSC),  G.R. No. 178296, January 12, 2011.

25. Wages; payment pending reinstatement. Employees are entitled to their accrued salaries
during the period between the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement pending appeal and
the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) overturning that of
the Labor Arbiter.  Otherwise stated, even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor
Arbiter is reversed on appeal, the employer is still obliged to reinstate and pay the wages
of the employee during the period of appeal until reversal by a higher court or
tribunal. On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period
and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to
reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually
rendered services during the period. Social Security System vs. Efren Capada, et al.,  G.R.
No. 168501, January 31, 2011.