1. The Labor Code (P.D. No.

442, as amended) is a set of substantive and

procedural laws that prescribe the principal rights and responsibilities of
employers, employees and other industrial participants, as well as the role of
Government, in employment and related activities, so as to institute social justice.
The Labor Code lays down the fundamental rights and correlative obligations
of employers and employees to each other, such as those about work days

 DECREE INSTITUTING A LABOR CODE, THEREBY REVISING AND

CONSOLIDATING LABOR AND SOCIAL LAWS TO AFFORD
PROTECTION TO LABOR, PROMOTE EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND INSURE INDUSTRIAL PEACE
BASED ON SOCIAL JUSTICE.

2.
 MALABUNGA VS PACIFIC CATHAY

Facts:
Respondent Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation is a duly registered domestic corporation
engaged in the business of manufacturing steel products.

On July 9, 2004, an inventory of respondent's tools and items at the company warehouse
was made, and it was found that one aluminum level   was issued to respondent's Fabrication Unit,
7

and another to petitioner. 8

On July 11, 2004, petitioner Malabunga returned an aluminum level to the warehouse. 

Respondent CAthay Pacific claims that what petitioner returned to its warehouse on July 11,
2004 was the Fabrication Unit's aluminum level. This is based on the identical claim of Fabrication
Unit workers - Mangahas, Tercero, and Nagales - that they discovered their lost aluminum level
upon which was engraved the word "Fabrication" and had the familiar dent which, based on
warehouse records, turned out to be that which was returned by petitioner.

Petitioner was charged of Theft and was suspended. Petitioner contended that the
warehousemen and the Fabrication Unit workers conspired against him to cover up the loss of the
unit's aluminum level sometime in June2004, which was not reported at all to the warehouse;  that
the warehousemen were negligent in not adopting a system that would enable the proper
identification of tools and items borrowed; that as a result of the lack of such a system, he was
falsely accused of theft; that in fact, there was no evidence to prove that he stole the unit's aluminum
level; and that on the other hand, there could be no theft of the unit's aluminum level since, as far as
everyone is concerned, it was never lost at all since it was never reported missing by the unit.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Respondent Cathay Pacific but it was reversed by the
NLRC. When Respondent appealed to the CA, the CA ruled in favor of the Respondent Cathay
Pacific.

Issue: Whether or not Respndent Malabunga should be charged of thef

Ruling:

From the foregoing, there are serious doubts in the evidence on record as to the factual
basis of the charges against petitioner. These doubts shall be resolved in (his) favor in line with the
policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor.  The
consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. 

The warehouse man and the Fabrication Unit worker have a contradicted story. The
warehousemen claimed in their written statement that the aluminum level was clean and did not
contain any dent, damage or scratch whereas the fabrication unit workers contended that it has that
familiar dents and engraved the word “Fabrication.”

Faced with the limitations in respondent's system, this Court cannot sustain its view that
petitioner is guilty of theft of company property. It could simply be that due to the ineffective system
within the warehouse and its inefficient personnel, there was a mix-up of records;  worse, it could be
that tools and items within the warehouse were misplaced or lost due to its irresponsible
personnel. If any, respondent is alone responsible; it cannot conveniently put the blame on its
employees in order to make up for or cover its losses caused by its own disorganized system and
inept personnel.
 Central Project Manpower vs Naluis

GE No. 160123

Facts: Petitioner Centro Project Manpower Services Corporation (Centro Project), a local
recruitment agency, engaged Naluis to work abroad as a Plumber, under Pacific Micronesia
Corporation (Pacific Micronesia) in Garapan, Saipan, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (Northern Marianas)

The work was covered by the primary Employment Contract dated March 11, 1997,  whereby
6

his employment would last for 12 months, and would commence upon his arrival in Northern
Marianas. On June 3, 1997, the Department of Labor and Immigration of Northern Mariana Islands
issued an Authorization for Entry (AE)  in his favor. On September 3, 1997, Centro Project and
7

Naluis executed an addendum to the primary Employment Contract  to make the start of his
8

employment effective from his departure at the point of origin instead of his arrival in Northern
Marianas.

Naluis left for Northern Mariana on September 13, 1997,  the date of his actual deployment,
9

and his employment continued until his repatriation to the Philippines on June 3, 1998 allegedly due
to the expiration of the employment contract. Not having completed 12 months of work, he filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against Centro Project.

The Labor Arbiter found that Centro Project had been justified m repatriating Naluis, and
accordingly dismissed the complaint, he Employer has no other alternative but to repatriate
complainant otherwise, the employer could be liable for violation of the Commonwealth's Immigration
Rules x x x.

The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

The CA reversed the decision contending that the AE did not limit his stay in Northern
Marianas; and that, consequently, Centro Project had breached the contract by ordering his
repatriation

This letter allows authorized entry into the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for
Aguinaldo S. Naluis.

AGUINALDO S NALUIS
Expires Gender Birthdate Citizenship
5/13/98 M 4/11/57 PHL
Employer: PACIFIC MICRONESIA CORPORATION
Occupation: PLUMBER
Class: 706K Issue Date 6/3/97
Wage Rate: $3.25 Wage Type: HOURLY

You are hereby notified of the following requirements:

 1. Present this Authorization for Entry letter to an Immigration Officer immediately upon
arrival at your designated port of entry into the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.

xxxx

3. The Entry Permit, if issued for the purpose of employment, expires automatically upon
termination of such employment and must be surrendered to your employer.

xxxx

5. You must enter the CNMI within 90 days of issuance of this "Authorization for Entry" letter
if you are entering for the purpose of employment.  (emphasis supplied)
1âwphi1

Issue: Whether or not the NAluis has been illegally dismissed

Ruling: he AE thereby clearly indicated that the date of May 13, 1998 appearing thereon referred
only to the expiration of the document itself. Centro Project stretched its interpretation to bolster its
contention that May 13, 1998 was the limit of stay for Naluis in Northern Marianas. The interpretation
is unacceptable, for item number 3 of the AE even recognized any employment period if the AE was
issued for the purpose of employment. This meant that contrary to the position of Centro Project
there was no clear and categorical entry in the AE to the effect that the AE limited his stay in
Northern Marianas.

It is fundamental that in the interpretation of contracts of employment, doubts are generally resolved
in favor of the worker.  It is imperative to uphold this rule herein. Hence, any doubt or vagueness in
16

the provisions of the contract of employment should have been interpreted and resolved in favor of
Naluis.17

Although Centro Project alleges that it feared that Naluis would eventually be declared an illegal
alien had he not been repatriated, the records do not support the allegation. For one, Centro Project
did not demonstrate that its fear was justified at all. On the contrary, its fear was, at best, imaginary
because it did not submit evidence showing that the Northern Marianas authorities had ever moved
to declare him an illegal alien. Moreover, had Centro Project been aware of any likelihood of him
being soon declared an illegal alien, it could have easily advised him thereof, and explained the
situation to him in due course. Yet, he was not at all informed of the likelihood.
Continental Microasia vs

Facts:

Petitioner Continental Micronesia is a foreign corporation organized and

existing under the laws of and domiciled in the United States of America. It
is licensed to do business in the Philippines. Respondent, a US citizen
residing in the Philippines, accepted an offer to be a General Manager
position by Mr. Braden, Managing Director-Asia of Continental Airlines. On
November 7, 1992, CMI took over the Philippine operations of Continental, with
respondent retaining his position as General Manager. Thereafter, respondent
received a letter from Mr. Schulz, who was then CMI’s Vice President of
Marketing and Sales, informing him that he has agreed to work in CMI as a
consultant on an “as needed basis.” Respondent wrote a counter-proposal that
was rejected by CMI.

Respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner
corporation. Alleging the presence of foreign elements, CMI filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of CMI and the
subject matter of the controversy.

The Labor Arbiter agreed with CMI that the employment contract was executed in
the US “since the letter-offer was under the Texas letterhead and the
acceptance of Complainant was returned there.” Thus, applying the doctrine
of lex loci celebrationis, US laws apply. Also, applying lex loci contractus,
the Labor Arbiter ruled that the parties did not intend to apply Philippine
laws.

The NLRC ruled that the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the case when
CMI voluntarily submitted to his office’s jurisdiction by presenting evidence,
advancing arguments in support of the legality of its acts, and praying for
reliefs on the merits of the case.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and over the parties.

Issue:

Whether labor tribunals have jurisdiction over the case.

Held:

Yes. The Court ruled that the labor tribunals had jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of the case. The employment contract of Basso
was replete with references to US laws, and that it originated from and was
returned to the US, do not automatically preclude our labor tribunals from
exercising jurisdiction to hear and try this case.

On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of CMI was acquired through
the coercive process of service of summons. CMI never denied that it was
served with summons. CMI has, in fact, voluntarily appeared and participated
in the proceedings before the courts. Though a foreign corporation, CMI is
licensed to do business in the Philippines and has a local business address
here. The purpose of the law in requiring that foreign corporations doing
business in the country be licensed to do so, is to subject the foreign
corporations to the jurisdiction of our courts.

Where the facts establish the existence of foreign elements, the case presents
a conflicts-of-laws issue. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a
Philippine court in a conflict-of-laws case may assume jurisdiction if it
chooses to do so, provided, that the following requisites are met: (1) that
the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
(2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision
as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is
likely to have power to enforce its decision. All these requisites are present
here.