I.

Social Justice
Social justice according to Dr. Jose P. Laurel in Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726
(1940), is “neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism nor anarchy, but humanization
of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the States so that justice in
its rational and objectively 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,”
Social justice guarantees equality of opportunity, political rights, between given
and received and equality before the law. Social justice is also used as a justification on
certain benefits such as separation pay given to employees or workers which was dismissed
or separated from employment for causes provided under the Labor Code. However, there
are a qualifications before social justice comes into play in these cases.
Under the Labor Code, the general rule is that a person dismissed for cause as
defined therein is not entitled to separation pay. However, in several cases decided by the
Supreme Court, it admit equity as an exception. Equity has been defined as justice outside
law, being ethical rather than jural and belonging to the sphere of morals than of law. It is
grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction of positive law. However,
it was applied on case to case basis.
The Supreme Court states that separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of
social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes
other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Thus, in a case
where an employee was dismissed because of dishonesty and disloyalty, separation pay
was not granted because it involves the moral character of the employee. The same with
employees who participated in illegal strikes and violated the Code of Conduct of the
company as well as committed acts prohibited by the Labor Code. Such acts constitutes
serious misconduct. However, in cases where the employee was terminated on the ground
of loss of trust and confidence by the management because of the employees’ inefficiency,
separation pay as a means of social justice was given because it is not attributable to the
moral character of the employee.

II. Management Prerogative

An employer has the prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations
necessary for the proper conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures
in order to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with. In
the implementation of its rules and policies, the employer has the choice to do so strictly
or not, since this is inherent in its right to control and manage its business effectively.
Consequently, management has the prerogative to impose sanctions lighter than those
specifically prescribed by its rules, or to condone completely the violations of its erring
employees. Of course, this prerogative must be exercised free of grave abuse of
discretion, bearing in mind the requirements of justice and fair play.
One of its prerogative is to discipline an employee. Necessarily comes with it is the
right to dismiss, to determine who to punish, promulgate rules and regulations, impose
penalty, to choose which penalty to impose and the right heavier penalty than what the
company prescribe. Thus, the management has the right to dismiss an employee who
incurred absences in violation of the company’s policies.
 Consistent with the doctrine of management prerogative is the right of the employer
to reassign its employees to other stations, provided that the transfer is not
unreasonable, inconvenient, prejudicial, or involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of
salaries, benefits, and other privileges. For as long as said conditions are met, the
employee may not complain that the transfer amounts to a constructive dismissal. It is
also recognize that the employer has the right to regulate, according to his own discretion
and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including but not limited to, work
assignments and supervision, working methods and regulations, time, place and manner
of work, processes to be followed, and hiring, supervision, transfer, discipline, lay off,
dismissal and recall of workers. Thus, it may impose qualifications for hiring employees.
It may also prohibit its employees to have personal or marital relationships with
employees of competitor companies to protect its interest. This is in accordance with the
principle of bona fide occupational qualification, that there must be a compelling business
necessity for which no alternative exists other than the discriminatory practice. To justify
a bona fide occupational qualification, the employer must prove two factors: (1) that the
employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job
involved; and, (2) that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all
persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the
job. Thus, it cannot, as a condition for employment or continuous employment that an
employee shall not get married or otherwise prejudice a woman by reason of her marriage
nor compel to resign because they married a co-worker.

III. Preliminary Title

It is well-settled that international organization is outside the ambit of local courts or
tribunals. The reason is to avoid interference in their activities and for them to
discharge their responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states. In the same
vein, NLRC has no jurisdiction over government workers or employees. The proper
jurisdiction is vested with the Civil Service Commission. However, the jurisdiction
over employees of government owned or controlled corporations organized under the
Corporation Code is vested by the Constitution to NLRC. Stated otherwise, even if
the corporation was organized under special law and has its original charter, when it
is not a government owned or control corporation, still the jurisdiction is vested with
the NLRC.