LABOR RELATIONS

Atty. John R. Jacome, LLB, MA, STB-MA

Partner, Romulo Jacome & Baculio Attorneys at Law
HR Director, San Beda College Alabang
Professor of Law, SBCA School of Law & Graduate School of Business

COURSE SYLLABUS

Course description:

This course covers the important information about employment relations that will make students
acquainted with labor laws implementing the rights to self-organization and collective bargaining,
including the laws relating to strikes, pickets and lock-outs, and termination of employment. It explores
the changing relationships in the workplace that have taken their toll on the traditional collective
bargaining negotiations and labor relations' processes.

System of Instruction:

A combination of the Socratic method of recitation, case studies and a highly participatory and
interactive approach to practical situations and problems confronting labor-management relationships
within the company. The method of instruction is based on the combined lecture and question-and-
answer. This has proved to be more successful in effecting the harmonious development of the student’s
potential in reasoning and exposition. The re-statement of the codal provisions is followed by a discussion
of the basic philosophy underlying the same, and winds up with an analysis of the classic jurisprudence
exemplifying the application of the legal doctrine involved. The professor’s lecture on the fine as well as
the doubtful points of law, the proper interpretation, construction, harmonization and application of
apparently conflicting legal theories and bring the students up to date in the latest judicial rulings.

Course Outline:

A. INTRODUCTION

1. Constitutional and statutory basis

` 1.1 Constitution, Art. 2, Secs. 9-14, 18 and 20

1.2 Constitution, Art. 3, Secs. 10 and 18
1.3 Constitution, Art. 13, Sec. 3
1.4 Labor Code, Art. 218 [Memorize]
1.5 New Civil Code, Article 1700

Halagueña, et al. vs. PAL, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 297

2. General principles of labor law

2.1 Existence of employer-employee relationship is necessary for the application of labor laws
• Brotherhood Labor Unity vs. Zamora, January 7, 1987, 147 SCRA 49
• San Miguel Corporation Employees Union vs. Bersamira, June 13, 1990, 186 SCRA 496

a) Employment not merely a contractual relationship:

• Capitol Medical Center vs. Meris, 470 SCRA 125 [2005]

b) Who has initial burden of proving existence of an employer-employee relationship?

• Danilo P. Javier (Bitoy Javier) vs. FlyAce Corporation, G.R. No. 192558, 15 February 2012
• Bernard A. Tenazas, Jaime Francisco, and Isidro Endraca v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport,
G.R. No. 192998, 02 April 2014

2.2 Burden of proof upon employer to show validity of the exercise of its prerogatives

2.3 Only substantial evidence is required in administrative proceedings

• Alilem Credit Cooperative v. Bandiola, G.R. No. 173489, 25 February 2013, J. Peralta.

2.4 In case of doubt or ambiguity, liberal interpretation of law in favor of workers

1
 • Price vs. Innodata Phils., 567 SCRA 122 [2008]
• BPI vs. BPI Employees Union–Metro Manila, G.R. No. 175678, 22 August 2012
• Philippine Journalist Inc. vs.Journal Employees Union, G.R. No. 192601, 26 June 2013
• National Union of Workers In Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) -
Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. Philippines Plaza Inc., G.R. No. 177524, 23 July 2014
• Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Salaried Employees Union (MMPSEU) vs. Mitsubishi
Motors Phils Corp., G.R. No. 175773, 17 June 2013

2.5 But management rights likewise protected

• Best Wear Garments vs. De Lemos, G.R. No 191281, 05 December 2012

2.6 Paradigm shift towards mutual cooperation - Constitution, Art XIII, Sec. 3
• Toyota Motor Phils. Workers vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171

2.7 Principle of Social and Distributive Justice: Balancing of interests in case workers and
management’s rights collide .
• Tirazona vs. Phil. Eds Techno-Service [PET INC.], G.R. No. 169712, 20 January 2009
• Reynaldo Moya vs. First Solid Rubber Industries, G.R. No. 184011, 18 September 2013

B. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

1. Employer defined: Art. 219 (e), LC; DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (s)

2. Employee defined: Art. 219 (f), LC; DOLE Dept. Order 40 [2003], R1 S1 (r)

3. Employer relationship as matrix

3.1 Concept of employer-employee relationship

3.2 Tests to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship

(Memory aid: South West Disaster Control)
a. Selection and Hiring
b. Payment of Wages
c. Power of Dismissal
d. Control Test

• Hacienda Leddy, et al. vs. Paquito Villegas, G.R. No. 179654, 22 September 2014
• Hawaiian-Philco vs. Gulmatico , 238 SCRA 181

3.3 Who has jurisdiction to determine ER-EE relationship: Secretary of Labor or the National
Labor Relations Commission?
• People’s Broadcasting (Bombo Radyo Phils ) vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 179652,
08 May 2009
• Meteoro et al vs. Creative Creatures, G.R. No. 171275, 13 July 2009

3.4 Reasonable causal connection:

• Indophil Textile Mills Vs. Adviento, G.R. No. 171212, 04 August 2014
Is a car benefit a labor or a civil dispute?
• Smart Communications vs. Astorga, 542 SCRA 434, 27 Jan 2008
• Grandteq Industrial Steel Products vs. Edna Margallo, G.R. No. 181393, 28 July 2009.
Counterclaim involving transfer of ownership of company car falls within ambit of the
Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction.
• Domondon vs. NLRC, 471 SCRA 559 [2005]

3.5 Corporate officer or employee?

• Prudential Bank vs. Clarita Reyes, 352 SCRA 316
• Arsenio Z. Locsin vs. Nissan Lease Phils. Inc. and Luis Banson, G.R. No. 185567, 20
October 2010.
• Renato Real vs. Sangu Philippines, Inc. G.R. No.168757, 19 January 2011
• Raul C. Cosare vs. Broadcom Asia, Inc. and Dante Arevalo, G.R. No. 201298, 05
February 2014

2
 3.6 Effect when NO employer-employee relationship exists, or when the main issue does not
involve Er-Ee relationship - jurisdiction devolves with the regular courts
• Manliguez vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 427
• Georg Grotjahn GMBH vs. Isnani, 235 SCRA 216
• Eviota vs. Court of Appeals, 407 SCRA 394 [2003]

4. WHEN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT EXIST

Re: VALID JOB CONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS
DOLE Department Order No. 18 series of 2002;
Dept. Order No. 18-A, 14 November 2011; and
Dept. Order No. 1, series of 2012.

4.1 Management prerogative to contract out of services

• Asian Alcohol Corp vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 416 [1999]

4.2 Independent contractor/Job-contracting vs. Labor-only contracting

Dept. Order No. 18-02 [21 February 2002];
Department Order No. 18-A, series of 2011)

• Fonterra Brands Phils., Inc. vs. Leonardo Largado, et al., G.R. No. 205300, 18 March
2015
• Alilin vs. Petron, G.R. No. 177592, 09 June 2014.

HOWEVER, PRELIMINARY PRESUMPTION IS THAT CONTRACTOR IS LABOR-ONLY

CONTRACTING.
• Garden of Memories Park and Life Plan vs. NLRC 2nd Division, G.R. No.
160278, 08 Feb 2012, 665 SCRA 293
• 7K Corporation vs. NLRC, GR 148490, 22 Nov 2006, 507 SCRA 509, 523

THE PRINCIPAL HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED IS
AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RATHER THAN A REGULAR EMPLOYEE.
• Fuji Television Network, Inc. vs. Arlene S. Espiritu G.R. No. 204944-45, 03 December
2014.

4.3 Examples:
Masiador and sentenciador in a cockpit; not employees.
• Semblante vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196426, 15 August 2011.

Manufacturing company vs. forwarding agent

• Temic Automotive Phils. vs. Temic Automotive Phils. Employees Union–FFW, G.R.
No. 18695, 23 December 2009

Television Company vs. Talent

• Jose Sonza vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 138051, 10 June 2004
• ABS-CBN vs. Nazareno, GR 164156, 26 Sept 2006
• Farley Fulache et al vs. ABS-CBN, GR 183810, 21 Jan 2010
• Nelson Begino vs. ABS-CBN, GR No. 199166, 20 April 2015

Insurance company vs. commission agents

• Insular Life vs. NLRC, 179 SCRA 459
• Tongko vs. Manufacturers' Life Insurance Company (Phils.) Inc., G.R. No. 167622, 29
June 2010

4.4 Salient features of the Department Orders on Valid Job Contracting Arrangements:
capitalization, other requirements and negative list

Ø Mandatory registration of independent contractors (DO18, s11)

Ø Requirements for registration
Ø Declaration of Net Financial Contracting Capacity (DO18A, s3[g])
Ø Capitalization of at least P3Million (DO18A, s13[l])
Ø THE NEGATIVE LIST - What cannot be subcontracted out (DO18, as amended by
DO18A7)

3
 4.5 Liability of principal for unpaid wages of the employees job contractor – Solidary liability
as to wages and monetary claims
Compare with: Liability of principal to Labor-only contracting employees – solidary
liability as to All claims.
Effect of DOLE Certification as legitimate job contractor
• Ramy Gallego vs. Bayer Phils. G.R. No. 179807, 31 July 2009
• Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Ricky dela Cruz, supra.
• Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Agito, G.R.No. 179546, 13 Feb 09

5. COVERAGE OF LABOR CODE, ART. 6:

5.1 Covered employment

a. Industrial and agricultural employees

b. Employees of labor organization
c. Employees of independent contractor
d. Employees of non-stock, non-profit organizations

5.2 Excluded employment

a. Government employees
• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 428
• Manila Public School Teachers Assn. Vs. Laguio, 200 SCRA 323
• Carino vs. Commission on Human Rights, 204 SCRA 283

Special circumstances: Government employees with CBA

• Abanilla vs. Commission on Audit, 468 SCRA 87 [2005]
• Employees of GOCCs Lumanta vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 79

b. Exempted employers

c. Managerial employees, with respect to right to unionize

C. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES

Valid exercise of management prerogatives [Memorize elements.]

The free will of the management to conduct its own affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied,
PROVIDED THAT THE SAME IS EXERCISED:

Ø IN GOOD FAITH (BONA-FIDE IN CHARACTER),

Ø FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE EMPLOYER’S INTEREST; AND
Ø NOT TO CIRCUMVENT THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES.

• Capitol Medical Center vs. Meriz; San Miguel Brewery and Union Carbide cases)

1. Generally:
• San Miguel Brewery Sales vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25

2. Examples of the exercise of management prerogatives

2.1 Hiring of personnel and size of workforce

• Wiltshire File Co. vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 665

2.2 Taking out of chairs in assembly line

• Royal Plant Workers Union vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., G.R. 198783, 15 April 2013

2.3 Prohibition against Elective Office

• Ymbong vs. ABS-CBN, G.R. 184885, 07 March 2012

4
 2.4 Search of office computer to check misconduct
• Briccio “Ricky” Pollo vs. Chairperson Karina Constantino-David, G.R. 181881, 18
October 2012

2.5 Transfer of employees

• Pharmacia and UPJOHN, Inc. (now Pfizer Philippines, Inc.) vs. Albayda, Jr., G.R.
No.172724, 23 August 2010
• Prince Transport vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 167291, 12 January 2011

May employee refuse transfer by raising said transfer as a grievance?

• Manila Pavillion vs. Henry Delada, G.R. No. 189947, 25 January 2012

2.6 Terms and conditions upon hiring; qualification and change in law
• St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees’ Union – AFW vs. NLRC, 517 SCRA 677 [2007]

2.7 Terms and conditions upon hiring; ban on spouses in same company:
• Star Paper vs. Simbol, 487 SCRA 228 [2006]
Compare with: Stipulations against marriage
• Duncan association of Detailman – PGTWO and Tecson vs Glaxo Wellcome Phils.,
G.R. No. 16477, 12 April 2006; 438 SCRA 343 [2004]

2.8 Terms and conditions upon hiring; non-compete clauses

• Ollendorf vs. Abrahamson, 38 Phil. 585
• Red line transportation co. vs. Bachrach motor co., 67 Phil 77
• Dator vs. UST, Rev. Frs. Tamerlane Lana and Rodel Aligan, 31 Aug 2016
• Moreno vs. San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Manila 550 SCRA 415 [28 March 2008]
• Avon Cosmetics vs. Leticia Luna G.R. No. 153674, 20 Dec 2006

2.9 Imposition of weight requirement:

• Armando G. Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, GR. No. 168081, 17 October 2008

2.10 Permissible reduction of working hours

• Philippine Graphic Arts vs.NLRC, 166 SCRA 188 [1988]
• Linton Comml. Co. vs. Herrera, 535 SCRA 434 [2007]

2.11 Reorganization as an exercise of management prerogatives

• Jonathan V. Morales vs. Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc., G.R. No. 174208, 25
January 2011.

3. Policies as to employee classification/status

- pertains to coverage purposes
• Natl. Federation of Labor vs. NLRC, 234 SCRA 311
• Pier 8 Arrastre vs. Roldan-Confesor, 241 SCRA 294 [1995]
• Goya Inc. vs. Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013

Doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”

• Philex Gold Phils. vs. Philex Bulawan Supervisors’ Union, 468 SCRA 111

3.1 Regular vs. casual employees, Art. 280 LC

Policy Instructions No.12; Dept. Order No. 10, Art. IV amending Sec. 5, Rule 1, Bk. IV of
Implementing Rules)

3.2 Probationary employees, Art. 282 LC, Policy Instructions No. 11;
Dept. Order No. 10, Article V amending Sec. 6, Rule 1, Book VI of Implementing Rules

• Biboso vs. Victorias Milling, 76 SCRA 250 Mariwasa vs. Leogario, 169 SCRA 465
• Intl. Catholic Migration vs. NLRC, 169 SCRA 606

Extended probationary period; when allowed.

• Ver Buiser vs. GTE Directories, 131 SCRA 151
• University of the East, Dean Eleanor Javier et. al vs. Analiza Pepanio and Mariti D.
Bueno, G.R. No. 193891, 23 January 2013

5
 Training plus probationary period equals double probation:
• Holiday Inn Manila vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 417 [1993]

No need to inform probationary employees that he has to comply with all company rules
and regulations
• Phil. Daily Inquirer vs. Magtibay, GR 164532, 24 July 2007

But probationary nature to prevail over term:

• Yolanda Mercado vs. AMA Computer College Paranaque 13 April 2010
• Colegio del Santissimo Rosario vs. Rojo GR 170388, 03 Sept 2013

3.3 Term employment

• Brent School vs. Zamora, 181 SCRA 702 Pakistan Air Lines vs. Ople, 190 SCRA 90
Cielo vs. NLRC, 193 SCRA 410
• Phil. Village Hotel vs. NLRC, 230 SCRA 423
• Anderson vs. NLRC, 252 SCRA 116 [1996]
• AMA Computer College Paranaque vs. Austria, 538 SCRA 438 [2007]
• Jamaias VS NLRC, G.R. No. 159350, 09 March 2016
• Viernes, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commissions, et al., 400 SCRA 557 [04
April 2003]

3.4 Project employees

Policy Instructions No. 20 DOLE Dept Order No. 19, series of 1993, Section 2.2 [e] and [f]
• Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort vs. Visca, 567 SCRA 269 [2008]

Indicators of project employment, enumerated:

• Hanjin Heavy Industries vs. Ibanez, GR 170181, 26 June 2008

Absence of definite duration for projects lead to conclusion of regular employment. –

• PNOC-Energy Devt Bd vs. NLRC, 521 SCRA 222 [2007]

3.5 Seasonal Employees

• Mercado vs. NLRC, 201 SCRA 332
• Hacienda Fatima vs. Natl Federation of Sugarcane Workers, 396 SCRA 518 [28 Jan 2003]

EMERGING TREND: REGULAR SEASONAL WORKERS.

• Gapayao vs. Fulo and SSS, G.R. No. 193493, 13 June 2013
• Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati, G.R. No. 186439. 15
January 2014

3.6 Managerial employees vs. supervisory employees

Art. 219 (m), LC; Policy Instructions No. 8
• Rural Bank of Cantilan vs. Julve, 517 SCRA 17 [2007]

C. JURISDICTION REMEDIES AND APPEAL

1. Labor Arbiter
Art:.224, Labor Code

1.1 Strikes and Lock-outs

1.2 Termination disputes
1.3 ULP cases
1.4 Damages
1.5 Small money claims with claim for reinstatement
1.6 Other claims Cases:
• San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 719
• Sanyo Philippines Workers Union — PSSLU vs. Canizares, 211 SCRA 361
• San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-PTGWO vs. Bersamira, 186 SCI 496
• Molave Sales, Inc. vs. Laron, 129 SCRA 485 Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, 116 SCRA 597

6
2. National Labor Relations Commission

Art. 224 (b]; Art. 229, Labor Code

2.1 Powers of the Commission (Art. 225)

2.2 Ocular Inspection (Art. 226) injunctive power
2.3 Technical Rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement (Art.227)
• MERALCO vs Jan Carlo Gala, G.R. No. 191288 & 191304, March 7, 2012
• Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc vs. Court of Appeals, and Dimpaz, G.R. No.
155844, July 14, 2008

2.4 Jurisdiction; original and exclusive appellate (Art. 224 b; 229)

• Islriz Trading v. Capada et. al, January 31, 2011
• Garcia vs KJ Commercial, February 29, 2012
• Ong vs. CA, September 22, 2004
• Rosewood Processing vs. NLRC
• FSFI vs. NLRC, December 11, 2003
• Buenabora vs. Lim King Guan, January 20, 2004

2.5 NLRC can decide the legality of deduction

• Santos vs. Servier Philippines, November 28, 2008

2.6 Effect of NLRC reversal of labor arbiter’s order of reinstatement

2.7 REINSTATEMENT ASPECT OF LABOR ARBITER’s DECISION

• Roquero vs. PAL, April 2, 2004
• Airphil Corp vs. Zamora, August 7, 2004
• Lansangan vs. Amkor Technology Philippines, January 30, 2009
• Genuino vs NLRC, December 4, 2007
• Juanito Garcia vs, PAL, G.R. No, 164856, January 20, 2009
• Mt. Carmel College, vs. Jocelyn Resuena et al, G.R. No. 173076, October 10, 2007
• Buenviaje vs CA and Cottonway Marketing Corp, G.R. No, 147806, Nov. 12, 2002
• Pfizer, Inc vs Geraldine Velasco, G.R. No. 177467, March 9, 2011

2.8 APPEAL TO THE NLRC

2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended by NLRC En Banc Resolution No. 11-12, series of
2012
• Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd., et. at. vs. Estanislao Surio, et at. G.R. No. 154213,
23 August 2012.

Requirements for appeal from Labor Arbiter's Decision:

a) Ten days from receipt of Decision
b) Appeal fee
c) Surety bond in an amount equivalent to monetary award

2.9 Meaning of substantial compliance with requirement of appeal bond for perfection of
appeal to the NLRC.
• Phil Touristers Inc Vs. Mas Transit Workers (MTI) — KMU), G.R. No. 201237, 03
September 2014.
• Mt Carmel Employees’ Union Vs. Mt Carmel School , G.R. No. 186271, 24 Sept
2014

2.10 Issues on Appeal; Remedies; Extraordinary Remedies

2.11 Conciliation and Mediation
2.12 Requirements to perfect appeal to Court of Appeals (Petition for Certiorari)
2.13 Effect on NLRC’s Decision of the Petition for Certiorari
2.14 Execution (230)
2.15 Article 230, EXECUTION OF DECISIONS, ORDERS OR AWARDS
2011 NLRC Rules; Manual of Execution.
• Sy et al vs. Knitcraft Co., December 12, 2011
• Yupangco Cotton Mills vs. CA, January 16, 2002
• Ando vs Campo, February 16, 2002

7
3. Secretary of Labor

3.1 Jurisdiction of DOLE on its Visitorial Power under Art. 128, LC

• People’s Broadcasting Service (Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc.), vs. The Secretary of the
Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 179652, 06 March 2012

3.2 Requisites for the valid exercise of the visitorial and enforcement powers under Art. 128
• Rizal Security and protective agency vs. Hon. Maraan, G.R. No. 124915, Feb. 18, 2008.

3.3 Three (3) separate powers treated in Article 128

Ø Visitorial power
Ø Enforcement Power: Coverage (compliance orders, writ of execution, stoppage of work,
keeping and maintenance of employment records)

3.4 Nature of Visitorial and enforcement powers/ subject of the visitorial and enforcement powers

3.5 Who are the duly authorized representatives of the DOLE Sec?

3.6 Appeal to the DOLE Secretary

3.7 Reglementary period/ grounds for appeal

3.8 Article 128 vs 129 vs 217

Nature of proceedings and concomitant powers granted
On the person or officers granted the powers
On the subject matter
On the accompanying claims for reinstatement
On the party initiating the action
On the existence of employer-employee relationship
On the remedy of appeal, how taken?
On the reglementary period of appeal
On requirement of posting of bond to perfect the appeal
On the grounds for appeal
On the period to decide appeal and finality of decision

3.9 Injunction/TRO

3.10 Assumption of jurisdiction or certification of a labor dispute under former Art. 263 (G) results in
a status quo ante order or return to work order
• Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R.
No. 167401, July 5, 2010
• International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs, Sec. of Labor, G.R. No. 92981-83
• UST v. NLRC and UST Faculty Union, G.R. No. 89920, October 18, 1990

3.11 Power to suspend effects of termination (former 277 B, last sentence)

Grounds; Rationale; Reinstatement pending resolution of the termination dispute;
Who are the appropriate officials under former 277 (b)?

3.12 Arrest and Detention (Art. 279)

3.13 Contempt powers (Art. 231)
3.14 Original and Appellate powers
• Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW vs CA, 348 SCRA 565
• Phimco Industries, Inc vs Brillantes, 304 SCRA 747
• National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma, 304 SCRA 405

4. Regional Director - Art. 129, LC

4.1 Small money claims without reinstatement under Article 129

4.2 Claims that may be recovered; Requisites for the valid exercise of jurisdiction by DOLE regional
directors or hearing officers under Article 129
4.3 Jurisdiction when total money claims exceeds 5,000

8
 4.4 When claim does not exceed 5000 but employee prays for reinstatement
4.5 Effect of claiming separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as an alternative remedy
4.6 Employment relationship should no longer exist at the time of the initiation of the complaint for
money claim, otherwise
4.7 Appeals from decision of DOLE regional director under Article 129
4.8 How many days? Grounds for appeal and requisites for appeal are similar to those from LA to
NLRC
4.9 Visitorial and enforcement power Art. 128
• Maternity Children’s Hopsital vs. Sec of Labor, 174 SCRA 632
• Odin Security Agencty vs Dela Serna 182 SCRA 472
• Guico vs. Quisumbing, 298 SCRA 666
• SSK Parts Corporation vs. Camas, 181 SCRA 675
4.10 Petition for certification election

5. Bureau of Labor Relations – Med-arbiters (Art 232, LC)

5.1 Jurisdiction (original and appellate)

Ø Inter-union and Intra-union Conflicts
Ø Disputes arising from or affecting labor-management relations except grievances
Ø Registration of CBA

5.2 Appeal of the BLR Decision.

• Employees Union of Bayer Phils, vs Bayer Phils, December 6, 2010
• Montano vs Verceles, July 26, 2010
• Diokno vs, Cacdac, July 4, 2007
• Pepsi Cola Sales and Advertising Union vs Sec. of Labor, 211 SCRA 843
• Abbott Laboratories Phils, Inc. vs Abbott Laboratories Employees Union, 323 SCRA 392

5.3 Compromise agreements (Art 233) Release and Quitclaim; When valid, when not valid.
• Phil. National Construction Corp. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 95816, October 27, 1992)
• Veloso v. DOLE, 200 SCRA 201 (91)
• Union of Filipino Workers v. NLRC, 207 SCRA 435 (92)
• AG & P Co. of Mla. V. NLRC (G.R. No. 127516, May 28, 1999
• Magbanua vs. Uy, May 6, 2005
• Philippine Journalists Inc. v. NLRC, September 22, 2008

5.4 Issuance of Subpoeanas (Art. 234)

5.5 Appointment of Bureau Personnel (235)
5.6 Registry of Unions and File of Collective Agreements (Art. 236)
5.7 Prohibition on Certification Election (art. 237)
5.8 Privileged Communication (238)

6. Voluntary Arbitrator (Art. 261, LC)

(NCMB Primer on Grievance Settlement and Voluntary Arbitration)
NCMB Revised Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary Arbitration Proceedings (Oct.
15, 2004)
DOLE Circular No. 1

6.1 Types of voluntary arbitrator

6.2 Where to file pleadings/ service/ representations/ limitation on authority to bind party/
6.3 Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators
a. Original and exclusive (6) unresolved grievances arising from interpretation or
implementation or CBA
b. company personnel policies,
c. violations of CBA which are not gross in character,
d. wage distortion arising from the application of any wage orders in organized
establishments,
e. Other labor disputes including ULP and bargaining deadlocks, upon agreement of the
parties.
f. Termination dispute, is it a grievable issue?
• Landlex Industries v. CA, G.R. No. 150278, August 9, 2007
g. Money claims cases? Jurisdiction over the same? (Art. 224 (c)
• Del Monte vs. Saldivar, G.R. No. 158620, Oct. 11, 2006

9
 6.4 Referral to voluntary arbitrators
6.5 Concurrent Jurisdiction
6.6 When Jurisdiction is exercised
6.7 Enforcement of Decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators. How?
6.8 Powers and duties of voluntary arbitrators?
6.9 May DOLE Secretary act as Voluntary Arbitrator?
a. Administrative Intervention for Dispute Avoidance (AIDA) No. 1 DOLE Circular No. 1,
Series of 2006
b. Parties who may request for the Dole Secretary’s Intervention
c. Potential or ongoing dispute
d. Pre-requisite to intervention by the DOLE Secretary
e. DOLE Regional Directors and Assistant Directors May act as EX-officio Voluntary
Arbitrators (Department Order No. 83-07 Series of 2007, June 8, 2007)

6.10 Philippine Arbitration Law, not applicable to labor case

6.11 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, not applicable to labor cases
6.12 Initiation of arbitration, when?
6.13 Submission agreement, defined.
6.14 Contents of a submission agreement?
6.15 Notice to Arbitrate, defined.
6.16 Submission to arbitration through Notice to Arbitrate
6.17 Procedure; Contents of a Notice to Arbitrate
6.18 Submission Agreement vs Notice to Arbitrate?
6.19 Proceedings before voluntary arbitrator (nature, initial conference, effect of non-appearance,
submission of position papers and other pleadings, decision, period to render decision, sanction
for failure to comply with the period to decide, finality of decision, motion for reconsideration)
• Teng v. Pahagac, G.R. No. 169704, Nov. 17, 2010
6.20 Execution of proceedings; enforcement of decision; motion for the issuance of writ of execution
must be filed with;
6.21 Effect of filing of petition for certiorari on execution
6.22 Mode of Appeal? Rule 43, Rules of Court
6.23 Is the voluntary arbitrator a part of a government unit or a personnel under DOLE?
6.24 Grounds for Judicial review?
• Ludo & Luym Corp. vs Saordino, 395 SCRA 451
• Vivero vs. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 268
• Manila Midtown Hotel v. VA Borromeo, G.R. No. 138305, 9-22-04
• Tabigue et al vs. lntÍ Copra Export Corp., GR 183335, 23 Dec.2009
• Goya Inc. vs. Goya Employees Union, G.R. No. 170054, 21 January 2013

7. Grievance Machinery (Art. 260, LC)

7.1 Jurisdiction
7.2 Period to resolve grievance machinery?
• Master iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 219 SCRA 47
• San Miguel Corp vs. NLRC 304 SCRA 1

8. National Conciliation & Mediation Board (NCMB - BS R13 S3, IRR)

8.1 Strikes and Lock-outs; See chapter on Strikes

Labor Injunctions (Arts. 254; 218 and 263, Labor Code.)
• Deltaventures Resources, inc. vs. Judge Cabato, 327 SCRA 521
• Bisig ng Manggagawa sa Concrete Aggregates, Inc. vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 499

8.2 Conciliation vs. Mediation vs arbitration

(NCMB Manual of Procedures for Conciliation and Preventive Mediation Cases); IRR Labor Code
(Rule 1 Book V)
• Tabigue v International Copra Export Corporation, G.R. No. 183335, Dec. 23, 2009

8.3 Preventive Mediation

8.4 Process on preventive mediation?

10
 8.5 Authority to convert a notice of strike/lockout into a preventive mediation case. Grounds?
8.6 Effect of conversion of a notice of strike/lockout into a preventive suspension
8.7 Status of strike is staged after conversion of the notice of strike into a preventive mediation
case?
• San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 119293, June 10, 2003

8.8 Single Entry Approach

Rules on procedure of the Single Entry Approach (March 8, 2011)
Department Order No. 107-10
a. Purpose
b. Where SEnA is operational, (3)
c. Coverage
d. Cases not covered
e. Request for assistance
f. Where to file
g. Notice of Conference
h. Conduct of Conciliation-Mediation
i. Pre-Termination of the 30 day MCMP
j. Termination of SEnA proceedings
k. Compliance with Settlement Agreement
l. Issuance of Referral
m. Confidentiality of Proceedings
n. Settlement agreement; effect?
o. Non-compliance with settlement agreement; execution

9. Court of Appeals

9.1 Rule 43 vs. Rule 65, Rules of Court (Petition for Certiorari)
9.2 Grounds
9.3 Is it a matter of right or not?
9.4 Period to file certiorari? Extendible or not?
9.5 Can it be filed after the NLRC decision become final and executory?
9.6 When reckoned?
• St. Martin’s Funeral Homes vs NLRC, 295 SCRA 494
• Veloso vs China Airlines, Ltd., 310 SCRA 274
• Association of Trade Unions vs. Abella, 323 SCRA 50
• Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 328 SCRa 273
• MC Engineering, Inc. vs. NLRC, 360 SCRA 183

10. Supreme Court

Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure

10.1 Rule 45, Rules of Court

10.2 What mode of appeal?
10.3 Reglementary period to file appeal
10.4 May Rule 65 substitute for a lost appeal under rule 45?
10.5 Adm. Matter No. 07-7-12- SC amending Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court and Related Rules.
10.6 May a party file both petition under rule 45 and 65?
• Tancinco vs GSIS, 369 SCRA 221
• Abalos vs Philex Mining Corp, 393 SCRA 134

11. Other Issues

11.1 Liability of the Transferee of an Enterprise

• Sundowner Dev. Corp. vs. Drilon, 180 SCRA 14 Filipinas Port Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 200
SCRA 773

11.2 May employer offset costs of employee’s training from retirement benefits?
• Bibiano C. Elegir vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc. G.R. No. 181995, 16 July 2012.

11
 11.3 Workers’ preference of credit vs lien on unpaid wages,
• Art. 110 LC DBP vs. NLRC, 229 SCRA 351
• DBP s. NLRC, 242 SCRA 59 [1995]
• Prudential Bank vs. NLRC, G.R. NO. 112592 (19 Dec. 1995J
• Manuel D. Yngson, Jr., (in his capacity as the Liquidator of ARCAM & Co., Inc.) vs. Philippine
National Bank. G.R. No. 171132, 15 August 2012.

11.4 Prescriptive period in Labor Code prevails over Civil Code in termination cases
• Laureano vs. Court of Appeals. 324 SCRA 414 [2000] Victory Liner vs. Race, 519 SCRA 497
[2007J
• Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp vs. Panginiban, 514 SCRA 404 [2007]

SUPPLEMENTAL CASES:
• Halagueña, et al. vs. PAL, October 2, 2009, 602 S 297
• Hawaiian-Philco vs. Gulmatico , 238 SCRA 181
• Sulpicio Lines vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 506
• Nube vs. Lazaro, January 19, 1988, 157 SCRA 123
• Silva vs. NLRC, 274 SCRA 159
• Pioneer Concrete vs. Todaro, 524 SCRA 153
• Kawachi vs. del Quero, 519 SCRA 102
• Cabalen Mgt. Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Quiambao, 518 SCRA 342
• Manaya vs. Alabang Country Club, 525 SCRA 140
• Metro Transit vs. Piglas-NFWU-KMU, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 326
• Laguna Metts Corporation vs. CA, et. al. – July 27, 2009,
594 SCRA 139
• Jaime S. Domdom vs. Sandigan, Feb. 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 528
• Johnson & Johnson vs. Johnson Office and Sales Union, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 672
• J-PPHIL Marine, Inc. vs. NLRC – Aug. 11, 2008, 561 SCRA 675
• PNB vs. Velasco - Sept. 11, 2008, 564 SCRA 512
• AMA Computer vs. Nacino, Feb. 12, 2008, 544 SCRA 502
• G & M (Phil) vs. Rivera, Jan. 29, 2007, 513 SCRA 180
• Diokno vs. Cacdac, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 440
• Reyes vs. NLRC, Feb. 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 322
• Magbanua,et al. vs.Uy, G.R.No.161003, May 6, 2005, 458 SCRA 184
• Eurotech Hair Systems, Inc. et. al. vs. Go, August 31, 2006,
500 SCRA 611
• Yupangco Cotton Mills vs. CA January 16, 2002, 373 SCRA 451

D. RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
Department Order No. 9 [21 June 1997] and,
Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003]
Republic Act No. 9481 (25 May 2007)

1. Principles of distributive and social justice found in the constitution;

Rights of workers

ART II (state policies),Sec. 9

ART III, Secs. 1 and 8
ART. XII (National Economy and Patrimony), Secs. 1, 6 and 12.
ART XIII (Social Justice & Human Rights; Labor), Secs. 1 & 3
Article 3, Labor Code: Declaration of Policy

• Nueva Ecija Electric Coop (NEECO) Employees Association v. NLRC, Jan. 24, 2000, G.R. No.
116066

Statutory Basis:
• UST Faculty Union vs Bitonio, 318 SCRA 186
• National Union Bank Employees vs. Bitonio, 110 SCRA 274
• U.E. Automative Employees v. Noriel, 74 SCRA 72

12
 Concept of freedom of association: ILO Convention No. 87; (LCP 219 G;F M); LCP Art. 252-256;
(258-e); 267-271
• Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union v. Liberty Cotton Nills, G.R. No. L-33987, Sept. 4.
1975/May 31, 1979
• BPI vs BPI employees Union Davao Chapter, G.R. No. 164301, Oct. 19, 2011

2. Who cannot unionize for purposes of collective bargaining

(Azucena, pp. 140-149); Executive Order No. 180

Effect of Inclusion as Members of employees outside the bargaining unit (255)

Ineligible Employees or workers with no right of self-organization

2.1 Government employees [ supra., Part B, sec. 5.2 (a) ]

2.2 Employees of government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters

2.3 Members of a cooperative

CENECO vs DOLE, 201 SCRA 584
• Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Caleja, 180 SCRA 740
• BUT: Republic of the Philippines represented by SSS vs. AsiaPro Cooperative, G.R. No.
172101, 3 Nov 2007

2.4 Managerial employees, Art. 245 cf. Art. 212 [m], Labor Code Dept. Order No. 9, Rule II, Sec.
2; Dept Order 40, R1 S1(hh) Higher standards required of managers:
• Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007]

2.5 Confidential employees: Doctrine of necessary implication

• Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, 210 SCRA 339
• Golden Farms vs. Sec. of Labor, 234 SCRA 517
• Sugbuanon Rural Bank vs. NLRC, 324 SCRA 425 [2000]
• Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia Brewery vs. Asia Brewery, G.R. No.
162025, 03 August 2010.

Contra:
• De la Salle Univ. vs. DLSU-Employees Assn., 330 SCRA 363 [2000]
• San Miguel Cor. Supervisory and Exempt Employees Union vs. Laguesma, 277 SCRA
370 [1997]

2.6 Employees of International Organizations or Specialized Agencies

which are registered with the United Nations and enjoys diplomatic immunity
• International Catholic Migration Association v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130

Contra:
• German Agency for Technical Cooperation(GTZ) vs. CA GR. No. 152318
16 April 2009

Non-employees (252) Republic Planters Bank etc. v. Laguesma, 264 SCRA 637
a. Employees of International Org:

• Party protected Mactan Workers Union v. Aboitiz, 45 SCRA 577

Non-abridgment of Right (256)

Sanctions for Violation of Right (Art. 256, 258, 259, 302, 303)

3. Who can unionize for purposes of collective bargaining

(Azucena , pp. 140-149; Art. 245 Lc cf. B5 R2 S1, IRR)

Extent and scope of the right; who may join unions (Art. 252) Art. 291 (c)
Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule II, Sec. 2; Art. 256
• Reyes vs Trajano, 209 SCRA 484;
• Kapatiran v Calleja, 162 SCRA 367;

13
 • Pan-Am World Airways, Inc. vs. Pan-Am Employees Association, 27 SCRA 202;
• FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation, Inc v. Trajano, 152 SCRA 725

3.1 Supervisory Employees (cannot join with rank and file)

Defined: DO40, R1 S1 (xx)

Right:
• Filioil Refinery Corp. v. Filioil Supervisory and Confidential Employees Association, 46
SCRA 512
Test:
• National Sugar Refineries Corp v. NLRC, 220 SCRA 452
• Dunlop Slazenger Phils. Inc. v. Sec of DOLE, 300 SCRA 120
• Samson v. NLRC, 330 SCRA 295

But note: Can they belong to the same federation?

• Atlas lithographic vs Usec Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12

Republic act no. 9481, Section 8, amending Article 245 of the Labor Code.

3.2 Rank and file employees (But cannot join supervisory union) Defined: DO40, R1 S1 (nn)

• Alliance of Nationalists etc. v. Samahang etc., 258 SCRA 371

3.3 Security guards

• Philips Industrial Development vs. NLRC, (supra.) 210 SCRA 339
• Manila Electric Company v. Sec of Labor, 197 SCRa 275

3.4 Alien employees with valid working permits

Dept. Order No. 9 [1997], Rule II, Sec. 2

3.5 Non profit Organization

• FEU vs. Trajano, 152 SCRA 725

3.6 Members of Religious Group

• Victoriano v Elizalde Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54)Kapatiran, etc. v. Calleja, 162 SCRA 367

3.7 Government Corporation Employees (253 LC)

3.8 Workers-Cooperatives

CASES:
• Arizala vs Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 584
• Benguet Electric Cooperative vs Calleja, 180 SCRA 740
• Cruzvale, Inc. vs Laguesma, 238 SCRA 389
• Portworkers Union vs LAguesma, 207 SCRA 329
• Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino vs Trajano, 201 SCRA 453
• National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines vs. Trajano, 208 SCRA 18
• Progressive Development Corp vs Secretary, 205 SCRA 802
• Tagaytay Highlands International Golf Club, Inc. vs Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-
PTGWO, 395 SCRA 699
• Associated Labor Union-PTGWO vs NLRC, 188 SCRA 123
• ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. 304 SCRA 489

E. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Azucena, pp. 95-105; Fernandez, 213-278
DOLE Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], Rule
III Republic Act No. 9481 (25 May 2007)

1. Definitions
1.1 Labor organization - Art. 212 (g); Dept. Order No. 9, RI, S(h) DO 40, R1, S1 (cc)
• Airline Pilots Association of the Phils v. CIR, 76 SCRA 274
• Dunlop etc. vs Sec. of Labor, 300 SCRA 120

14
 1.2 Legitimate labor organization - 212 (h); DO 9, RI, S(i); DO 40, R1, S1 (ee)
Effect: Art. 242, LC Book 5, Rule 2, Sec. 10, IRR

Basis of Legitimacy:
• Cebu Seaman’s Association., Inc. v Ferrer Calleja- 212 SCRA 50
• Progressive Dev. Corp. Sec DOLE, 205 SCRA 802
• Tagaytay Highlands etc. vs Tagaytay Highlands etc. 395 SCRA 699

1.3 Company union - Art. 212 (i)

1.4 Others: Legitimate Workers’ Association, DO40, R1 S1 (ff)

2. Rationale for unionization

• United Seamen’s Union v. Davao Shipowners Assn. 20 SCRA 1226
• University of Pangasinan v NLRC, 218 SCRA 65

3. Union registration and procedure; requirements; modes of acquiring legitimate status; Art (239-
243); Book V, Rules, III, IV (Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department Order No. 40, [17
February 2003], Rule 3, Sections 1-11; Article 234 LC as amended by Rep. Act No. 9481)

a. Effect on Guarantee of Freedom of Association

• PAFLU v. Sec. of Labor, 27 SCRA 41

3.1 Independent union, requirements for organization

Art. 234, LC; B5 R2 S2-4, IRR; DO 9, RIII, S(i); DO40 R3 S2
Republic Act No. 9481, Section 1, amending Art. 234, LC

3.2 Affiliation with federation and national union, requirements for organization
Art. 234 & 237, Lc; B5 R2 S2-4, IRR; DO 9, RIII, S(II)l DO40 R3 S2, S6-9
Art. 234-A, LC as inserted by Republic Act No. 9481

Chartered Local, defined under DO No. 40 RI S1 (i)

• San Miguel Corp (Mandaue PPP] vs. Mandaue Packing Products Plants – San Miguel
Corporation Monthlies and Rank-and-File Union – FFw, 467 SCRA 107 [2005]

3.3 Attestation requirements – verified by Secretary/Treasurer, and attested by President

thereof – DO 9, RV S2 (i)

Whether charter certificate issued by Federation needs to be certified and attested by the
local union officers, as part of the registration requirements of a charter -
• Samahang Manggagawa Sa Charter Chemical Solidarily of Unions in the Philippines for
Empowerment and Reforms (SMCC-SUPER) vs. Charter Chemical and Coating Corp., GR
169717, 16 March 2011.
• Mariwasa Siam Ceramics v. Secretary of Labor, Decemer 21, 2009
• Electromat Manufacturing and recording corp. v. Lagunzad, July 27, 2011
• Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club vs CA and EREU, G.R. No, 178989, March 18, 2010
• Tagaytay Highlands Intl. Golf Club Inc. vs Tagaytay Highlands Employees Union-PGTWO, G.R.
No. 142000, January 22, 2003
• S.S Ventures International, Inc, vs. SS Ventures Labor Union, G.R. No. 161690, July 23, 2008

3.4 Action by the Bureau of Labor Relations

Arts. 235-236, LC; B5 R2 S5-6, IRR; DO 9, RV, S3-4
• Progressive Development Corp. vs. Laguesma 271 SCRA
• Vassar Industrial employees Union v. Estralla, 82 SCRA 280

Rights of Legitimate Labor Organization (250); 218 h

• Acedera v. International Container Services, Inc. 395 SCRA 103

Effect of Non-registration
• Protection Technology Inc. v. Sec of Labor, 242 SCRA 99
• Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc v. Laguesma, 324 SCRA 425

15
 3.5 Reportorial requirements
Article 242-A, LC, as inserted by Rep. Act No. 9481, Sec. 7

3.6 Cancellation
Arts. 238-239; B5 R2 S7-11, IRR; DO 9, RVII
Republic Act No. 9481, secs. 5-9, amending Art. 239, LC ; effect of amendment

• Takata (Philippines) Corporation vs Bureau of Labor Relations and Samahang Lakas

Manggagawa Ng Takata (Salamat), Respondents. G.R. No. 196276, June 04, 2014

• Discrepancies in number of members stated in application, whether a ground

for Cancellation on account of fraud
Mariwasa Siam Ceramics vs. Secretary of Labor, GR 183317, 21 December 2009
Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club vs. Court of Appeals and Eagle Ridge
Employees Union [EREU], G.R. No. 178989, 18 March 2010
• Failure to submit annual financial report; no longer a ground for cancellation
of union registration
The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. national union of Workers in the hotel, reataurant
and allied industries- heritage hotel manila Supervisor’s chapter Gr. No 178296,
January 12, 2011

• Filing of petition for cancellation of Union’s registration is not per se an act of

ULP
Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union Vs. NLRC 317 SCRA 669 (1999)

• Registration of union not to subject to collateral attack

San Miguel Employees Union-PTGWO vs. San Miguel Packaging Products
Employees Union, 533 SCRA 125

• Inclusion of supervisory employees in the R&F union is NOT a ground to

impugn the legitimacy of the union.-
SAMMA-LIKHA VS. SAMa corp GR. No. 167141 March 13, 2009

• Compare with requirements under new law, republic act no. 9481, secs 4-5
Amending article 238 and 239 of the Labor Code; also Article 238-a, LC

• Pendency of a petition for cancellation of union registration will not preclude

collective bargaining
Legend International Resorts vs. Kilusang Manggagawa ng Legenda, GR 169754,
23 February 2011.

• Voluntary cancellation – Article 239-A, LC as inserted by Republic

Act No. 9481, Sec. 6

CASES:
• Abbott Laboratories Phils. Inc v. Employees Union, 323 SCRA 392
• Tagaytay Highlands case
• Alliance of Democratic Labor Org. v. Laguesma, 254 SCRA 565

4. Rights and conditions of membership (Art. 241, LC)

UNION-MEMBER RELATIONS/ RIGHTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP; intra-union relations;

primacy of union constitution and by laws: LCP Art. 249; (former 274); Rules, Book V, Rules XI-XIII

a. Nature of Relationship
• Heirs of Cruz v. CIR, 30 SCRA 917
b. Issues
c. Admission and Discipline of Members (259 a); (291c)
• UST Faculty Union vs Bitonio, G.R. No, 131235, Nov. 16, 1999
• UST vs. Samahang MAnggagagawa ng UST, G.R. No. 169940, Sept 14, 2009
• Montano vs Verceles, G.R. No. 168583
d. Retention of membership

16
 Discipline
• Villar v. Inciong 121 SCRA 444
Due Process Rules (293 and 277b)
• Bugay v. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa MRR 4 SCRA

e. Election officers- Qualifications, Manner of Election, Tenure and Compensation (Art. 241 [c, f
and k])
• Cruz vs. Calleja, 188 SCRA 520
f. Voters List
• Tancinco v. Calleja 157 SCRA 203
• UST Faculty Union v. Bitonio, 318 SCRA 185
g. Disqualified Candidate
• Manalad v. Trajano, 174 SCRA 322
h. Expulsion Remedy
• Kapisanan etc. v. Trajano, 134 SCRA 236
i. Election Invalid
• Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, 165 SCRA 239
j. Major Policy Matter (Art. 249 d)
• Halili v. CIR, 136 SCRA 112
k. Union Funds
(249 g,h,i,j,l,m,n,o and 288)
l. Source-payment-attorney’s fees
• Pacific Banking Corp. v. Clave, 128 SCRA 112
m. Examination of books (Art.288)
• Duyag v. Inciong, 98 SCRA 522
n. Union Dues
• Rodriguez v. Director, Bureau of Labor Relations, 165 SCRA 239
o. Source-payment-special assessment
(Art 249 (m)(n) (o)
• Palacol v. Calleja, 182 SCRA 710
• ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. 304 SCRA
489
• National Brewery and Allied Industrial Labor Union vs. SMC, 8 SCRA 805
p. Mandatory Activity (Art 249 0)
q. Definition
• Vengco v. Trajano 173 SCRA 155
r. CBA negotiation
• Galvadores v. Trajano, 144 SCRA 138
s. Union Information (249 p)
t. Union Officer-obligation Continental Cement Corp.
• Labor Union v. Continental Cement 189 SCRA 134
u. Attorney’s fees
• Gabriel vs. Secretary of Labor, 328 SCRA 247 [2000]
v. Enforcement and Remedies-Procedure and Sanctions (249 last par and 232)
w. Jurisdiction-Exhaustion Internal Remedies
• Rodriguez v. BLR, 165 SCRA 239
• Diamono v. DOLE, 327 SCRA 282
x. Remedy:
• Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap v. Trajano, 134 SCRA 236

LABOR ORGANIZATION/REGULATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS: (Art. 239-248)

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF UNION-PROHIBITION AND REGULATION

(Article 283-285) Regulation of Foreign Assistance; Applicability to Farm Tenants and Rural Workers

UNION AFFILIATION: LOCAL AND PARENT UNION RELATIONS (ILO no. 87. Art. 5,) Purpose of: Nature of
Relations; Art. 218 (c) Labor Code

a. Nature of Relationship
• Tropical Hut, etc. Tropical Hut Food Market, etc, 181 SCRA 173
• Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp, 318 SCRA 68
b. Effect-Legal Personality
• Adamson etc v. Adamson, 127 SCRA 268

17
 c. Supervisor-Rank and File Union Affiliation (252 and 254, Labor Code)
d. Rule-Affiliation
• Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc, v. Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12
• Dela Salle Univ. Medical Center v. LAguesma, 294 SCRA
e. Local Union Disaffiliation
f. Nature Right Disaffiliation
• Volkshel Labor Union v. BLR, 137 SCRA 42
• Malayang Samahan etc v. Ramos, 326 SCRA 428
• Phil. Labor Alliance Council v. BLR, 75 SCRA 162
• Cirtek Employees Labor Union – FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics, GR 190516, 06 June 2011.
g. Rule-Legality Act-Disaffiliation
• Phil Skylanders Inc. v. NLRC, 375 SCRA 369
• Alex Ferrer v. NLRC, 224 SCRA 410
• Villar v. Inciong, 121 SCRA 444

F. THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT

Azucena, pp. 233-234; Fernandez, 279-290
Department order No. 9 21 June 1997and
Department order No. 40 17 February 2003
Republic Act no. 9481 25 May 2007

1) Bargaining unit defined – Art. 255, LC

2. Determination of appropriate bargaining unit

2.1 Generally – community of interest

Exception : Globe doctrine – desire of employees
2.2 ineligibility of managerial employees to join any labor organization; right of
supervisory employees – Rep. Act No. 9481 Sec 8 amending Art 145, LC
2.3 Effect of Inclusion as members of employees outside the bargaining unit - rep act.
9481, inserting art, 245-A, LC

G. CERTIFICATION ELECTION
Azucena, pp. 244-265; Fernandez, 290-347 Department Order No. 9. [21 June 1997], and Department
Order No. 40, [17 February 2003], RVIII Republic Act No. 9481 (25 May 2007)

1. Role of Employer during certification elections –

Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 12, inserting Art. 258-A, LC

2. Other kinds of recognition of employee representatives excluding certification elections

2.1 Direct certification - not allowed

2.2 Voluntary recognition, Dept. Order No. 9, Rule X
2.3 Consent election, DO 9, RI, S (ee); DO 40 R8 S10
Effect of consent election: DO40 R8 S23

3. Certification election and procedure

Art. 256-257, LC; B5 R5 S1-9, IRR,
Dept. Order No. 40 [2003], Rule 8 and 9
Rep. Act No. 9481 [25 May 2007], Secs. 10 and 11

3.1 Definition and nature of CE – B5 R1 S1 [x], IRR; DO 9, RI (dd)

Exclusive bargaining representative: Dept. Order DOLE 40 [2003]

• NUHRWRAIN – Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs. Sec. of Labor, BLR
• Holiday Inn Manila Pavilion Hotel Labor Union vs Acesite Phils. GR No.
181531

3.2 Who may, and where to file petition for CE

B5 R5 S1-2, DO 9 Rule XI
Republic act no. 9481 Sec 10, amending Art 256, LC
3.2.1 challenging the petition for CE

18
 3.3 When to file petition for CE - DO40 R8 S3
3.3.1 If unorganized establishment
- at any time (B5 R5 S3-6, IRR)
- Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 257, LC

3.3.2 If organized establishment

Rep. Act No. 9481 sec 8, amending Art. 256, LC

a. No duly registered CBA – at any time

`` b) With duly registered CBA

1) Contract bar rule - only during freedom period (Art. 232, LC; B5 R5 S4,
IRR)
• FVC Labor Union-PGTWO vs. Sama Samang Nagkakaisang Mangggagawa sa FVC-
SIGLO, GR 176249, 27 November 2009
2) One-year bar rule (B5 R5 S3, IRR)
3) Deadlock bar rule (B5 R5 S3, IRR)
4) Denial of Petition for Certification Election;
4.1 Grounds for denial: Dept Order No. 40, R8 S14-15
4.2 Appellate procedure in case of denial
5) Procedure in the conduct of certification elections
Dept. order no. 40, R9 Sections 1- 20
5.1 Raffle and pre- election conference
5.2 Qualification of voters; inclusion-exclusion proceedings
May probationary employees vote in the certification elections, if the
CBA provision explicitly excludes them in the vote?
• NUHRWRAIN – Manila Pavilion Hotel Chapter vs Sec. of Labor, GR. No.
181531
5.3 Voting paper
5.4 Challenging the votes; on the spot questions
5.5 Canvass of votes
5.6 certification of collective bargaining agent
6) Run-off elections – DO 9, Rule XIII; Dept order No. 40,R10
7) Failure of elections – Dept order No. 40 r17 and 18

H. INTER-UNION AND INTRA-UNION DISPUTES

DOLE Department Order No. 40-03, series of 2003

1. What are inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s1&2].

QUESTION: In cases where there are two contending factions of officers in an inter-union
dispute (of the majority union), may the employer unilaterally refuse to remit union dues to on
the pretext that there is an on-going intra-union dispute between the two factions? Is the non-
remittance of union dues constitutive of ULP as an interference in internal affairs of the Union?
• De la Salle University vs. De la Salle University Employees Association. G.R. No. 169254, 23
August 2012
2. What are effects of pendency of inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s3].
3. Who may file an inter- or intra-union disputes [DO40, s4].
4. Where to file inter- or intra-union disputes.

I. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Azucena 199-233)
Department order No. 9 [21 June 1997]
Department order No. 40 [17 February 2003]

1. Duty to bargain collectively

1.1 a. Defined
b. Two kinds of bargaining:
Single enterprise bargaining- one where any voluntary recognized or certified labor
union may demand negotiations with its employer for terms and conditions of work
covering employees in the bargaining unit concerned.
Multiple Employer Bargaining - One where a legitimate labor union and employer may
agree in writing to come together for the purpose of collective bargaining, provided:

19
 (1) only legitimate labor unions who are incumbent exclusives bargaining agents may
participate and negotiate in multi-employer bargaining.

(2) only employers with counterpart legitimate labor unions who are incumbent bargaining
agents may participate and negotiate in multi-employer bargaining; and

(3) only those legitimate labor unions who pertain to employer units who consent to multi-
employer bargaining may participate in multi-employer bargaining.

1.2 When duty to bargain exists/begins -

1.2.1 In the absence of a CBA - Art. 251, LC
1.2.2 Existence of a CBA - only during freedom period, Art. 253, LC

1.3 Effect of refusal to bargain - constitutes ULP under Art. 258 (g)
• Divine Word Univ. vs. NLRC, 213 SCRA 759
• Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Assn of Employees and Faculty of Letran, 340
SCRA 587 [2000]

1.4 When duty to bargain ceases

1.5 standard of conduct required
Surface bargaining
• Standard chartered Bank Employees Union (NUBE) vs Secretary Nieves Confesor
and Standard Chartered Bank GR No. 11497 June 16 2004
Individual Bargaining
• Insular life Assurance Employees- NATO Vs. Insular life Assurance Ltd., 76 SCRA
50

2. What are bargainable issues –Art. 252 LC

3. Bargaining Deadlock
3.1 When is there a deadlock in collective bargaining
3.2 difference between economic and non-economic provisions
3.3 remedies- Notice of strike or notice of lock-out
- 30-day cooling period and 7-day strike ban

J. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Department order No. 9 [21 June 1997] and Department order No. 40 [17 February 2003]

1. Definition - B5 R1 S1 (jj). IRR

• Davao Integrated Port vs. Abarquez, 220 SCRA 193

2. Contents - supra., IRR

2.1 Mandatory subjects

a) Compliance with minimum labor standards; what is effect of sub- standard contract
• RFM Corp Flour Division vs. KAMPI-NAFLU-KMU, GR No. 162324, 04 February 2009.
b) Grievance procedure and voluntary arbitration
• San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, 204 SCRA 1 (1999)
c) No strike or No lock out clause
• Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa M Grenfield vs Ramos, 326 SCRA 428
2.2 Union Dues vs. Agency fees/ special assesments; check off
Art. 241 (r); Art. 222 (b)
• Palacol vs. Calleja Feb 26 1990
EFFECT IF ER FAILS TO IMPLEMENT CHECK OFF
• Holy Cross of Davao vs Joaquin 263 SCRA 358
2.3 Union security clauses: nature and kinds
• Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. BPI Employees Union – Davao Chapter – GR no. 164301
August 10, 2010
Termination due to union security clause
• Olvido vs CA, 536 SCRA 81[2007]
• Inquillo vs First Philippines Scales, 588 SCRA 471
2.4 Signing bonus
• Caltex refinery, supra 279 SCRA 218

20
 2.5 interpretation in favor of labor in cases of doubt or ambiguity (see also: General Principles
in Part A Section 2.4)
• BPI vs BPI Employees Union, G.R. No. 158678, Aug. 22, 2012
En contra: Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Salaried Employees Union (MMPSEU) vs. Mitsubishi
Motors Phils Corp., G.R. No. 175773, 17 June 2013
• National Union of Workers In Hotel Restaurant And Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN) -
Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. Philippines Plaza Inc., G.R. No. 177524, 23 July 2014

3. Signing and ratification

• ALU vs. Ferrer-Calleja, 173 SCRA 178

4. Effect:
4.1 With respect to successor-employer
• E. Razon vs. Secretary of Labor, 222 SCRA 1
• Metrobank Union vs. NLRC, 226 SCRA 268
4.2 With respect to a change in exclusive bargaining agent – Substitutionary Doctrine
• Benguet Consolidated vs. BCI Ees Union, 23 SCRA 465

5. Procedure in registration of CBA

Art. 23, LC; B5 R9 S1, IRR DO 9,Rule XVI Secs. 1-5

6. Scope of agreement, who may avail benefits –

• Natl. Brewers and Allied Industries Labor Union vs San Miguel Brewery
• New Pacific Timber vs. NLRC

7. Duration of the CBA

7.1 economic provisions of the CBA : 3 years

DUTY OF THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO PENDING RENEGOTIATION. –

• General Milling Corporation vs General Milling Corporation Independent Labor Union, GR No.
183122 and 183889

7.2 representaion question : 5 years

- contract bar rule, DO 9 Rule XVI, Sec4

May parties negotiate and agree to extend term of exclusive bargaining status of majority union?
• FVC Labor Union – Phil Transport and General Workers Org vs Sama-samang Nagkakaisang
Maggagawa sa FVC-Solidarity, GR No. 176249, Nov 27 2009

7.3 Retroactivity –
• Union of Filipino Employees vs NLRC, 23 SCRA 465
• Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, 302 SCRA 173 (1999)
• Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing, 326 SCRA 172 [2000]

K. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

1. Concept: Article 247, Labor Code.

Test to determine ULP
• Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Employees Association-NATU vs. Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd., 37 SCRA 244 [1971]
• De Leon vs. NLRC, 358 SCRA 274 (2001]

2. Unfair Labor Practices of Employers, Art. 248 LC

2.1 Interference in the right to self-organization

• Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade, G.R.
No. 149440, 28 January 2003
• Prince Transport, Inc. vs. Garcia, et at. G.R. No. 167291, 12 January 2011

2014 ULP CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS ORCHESTRATED ACTIVITIES TO

SUBVERT CERTIFICATION ELECTIONS.
• T & H Shopfitters Corporation/ Gin Queen Corporation et. at. vs. T & H
Shopfitters Corporation/Gin Queen Workers Union, et. at., G.R. No. 191714,

21
 26 February 2014, J. Mendoza.

2.2 Refusal to bargain collectively

• Divine World vs. Secretary of Labor, 213 SCRA 759 [1992]

2.3 Gross violation of the CBA; need not be limited to economic provisions if
GROSS PER SE
• Employees Union of Bayer Phils. vs. Bayer Philippines. GR No. 162943

2.4 Question: Is a Iumpsum amount in lieu of wage increases during CBA

negotiations tantamount to bargaining in bad faith?
• Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation, G.R. No. 170007, 07 April 2014.

3. Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations, Art. 249 LC

3.1 Interference in the employee’s right to self-organization or to discriminate

against him. . '
• Manila Mandarin employees union vs. NLRC, 154 SCRA 368 (1987)

4. When not ULP:

• General Santos Coca-cola Plant Free Workers Union-TUPAS vs. Coca Cola
Bottlers et al., GR 178647, 13 February 2009

Suspension of CBA due to financial losses not ULP:

• Manila Mining Corp. Employees Association, et al vs. Manila Mining Corp, et al.,
G.R. Nos. 178222-23,.29. September 2010

L. STRIKES, PICKETING AND LOCK-OUTS

Azucena, pp. 292 - 385
Art. 263 - 266, Labor Code
Rule 8, Secs. 1-14, lmplementing Rules and
Regulations. Dept. Order No. 9 [1997], Rule XXII,
Secs. 1-14 Department Order no. 40 (17 February
2003)

1. Constitutional basis and definition

DO 40, S1, R1
• Association of Independent Unions in the Phils. vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 219 (1999)

1.1 Mass leave is not equivalent to a strike. --

• Alex Q. Naranjo, et.at. vs. Biomedical Health Care, Inc., et. at. G.R. No. 193789, 19 September
2012
2. Who may declare a strike or lock-out; when it may be declared B5 R8 S2 IRR. Dept. Order No. 9, Rulę
XXII. Sec. 1-.2.

3. Requisites for Valid Strike or Lockout: Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXII: Sec.. 1
• First City Interlinks vs. Roldan-Confessor, 272 SČRA 124 [1997]
• Pilipino Telephone Corp vs. Pilipino Telephone Employees Association (PILTEA), 525 SCRA 361
[2007]
• Toyota Motor Phils. Workers Association (TMPCWA) vs: NLRC, 537 SCRA 171 [2007]

SIX CATEGORIES OF ILLEGAL STRIKE:

• Toyota Motor Philș Worker’s Assn. (TMPCWA) vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171 (2007).

3.1 Lawful purpose

3.1.1 Economic strike/lock out; Deadlock. defined
• Capitol Medical Center Alliance vs. Laguesma, 267 SCRA 503 [1997]
3.1.2 ULP strike/lock-out and Arts. 248-249, LC
Filing of petition for cancellation of Union's registration is not per as an act of ULP
• Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs. NLRC, 317 SCRA 689 (1999)

22
 Welga ng Bayan not a valid purpose
• Biflex Phils. Labor Union (NAFLU) vs. Filflex Int’l and Mfg., 511 SCRA 247 [2007]
• Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 155306, 28 August 2013,
QUESTION: May employees who have gone on mass leaves without prior authorization be
presumed to have conducted an illegal strike?
• Park Hotel, et at. vs. Manolo Soriano, et at. G.R. No. 171118, 10 September 2012

3.2 Lawful means

3.2.1 Art. 264 (b) and (e), LC
3.2.2 Guidelines on Removal of Illegal Blockades at Factory Gies, DOLE
Memorandum dated 22 October 1987
3.2.3 Guidelines for the Conduct of INP/AFP Personnel
during Strikes, Lock-outs and Labor Disputes in General, effective 22 October
1987
3.2.4 Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 22, Secs 10-13
• Ilaw at Buklod Manggagawa vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA 586
Note Violence committed on both sides during the strike
• Malayang Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa M Greenfìeld vs. Ramos
3.2.5 Liability of Union officers and members in illegal strikes
• Allied Banking Corp. vs. NLRC, 258 SCRA 724 [1996]

3.3 Compliance with procedural requirements

3.3.1 Strike vote/Lock-out vote (Dept. Order No. 9, R22, S7-8)

3.3.2 Notice of strike/lock-out (Dept. Order 9, R22, S3-5)
• San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 304 SCRA 1 (1999j
• Filipino Pipe and Foundry Corp. vs. NLRC , 318 SCRA 68
3.3.3 Cooling Off period
a. Economic strike: 30 days
b. ULP strìke: 15 days
c. Exceptions - Art. 263 (b); B5 R8 S3, IRR
3.3.4 Seven-day strike ban
• National Fedn. of Sugar Workers vs. Ovejera, 114 SCRA 354 First City Interlink vs.
Roldan-Confesor, 272 SCRA 124 {1997]
3.3.5 Conciliation proceedings (Dept. Order 9, R22, S6)
• GTE Directories vs. Sanchez, 197 SCRA 452
• San Miguel Corp vs. NLRC, 403 SCRA 418 [10 June 2003]
3.3.6 Improved offer balloting (Dept. Order 9, R22, S9)

3.4 Good faith strike

• People’s lndl. & Comml. (FFW) vs. PICC, 15 March 1982 Phil. Metal Foundries vs. CIR,
90 SCRA 135
CONTRA: Not a good defense in cases of procedural infirmity
• Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor Organizations of Workers in Hotel
Restaurant and Allied Industries. G.R. No. 1534664, 18 July 2003

3.5 Liability of company who fails to immediately reinstate the union

Liability of company who fails to immediately reinstate the union member for participating
in an illegal strike; extent of backwages.
• Alcantara and Sons vs Court of Appeals and Nagkahiusang Mamumuo Sa Alsons-SPFL,
G.R. No. 155109, 14 March 2012. J Peralta.

4. Effect of a no strike/no lock-out clause in CBA

• Phil. Metal Foundries vs.CIR, 90 SCRA 135
• Master Iron Labor Union vs. NLRC, 17 Feb. 1993

5. Assumption of Jurisdiction by Secretary of Labor or Certification of the labor dispute to the NLRC
for Compulsory Arbitration, Art. 264 (g), LC
• Saulog Transit vs. Lazaro, 128 SCRA 591
• Telefunken Semi-conductors Ees Union-FFW vs. CA, 348 SCRA 565 [2000]
5.1 Discretion of the Secretary
• FEATI University vs. Bautista, 18 SCRA 1191

23
 Extent of discretion: May order the suspension of the termination aspect of a
labor dispute -
• University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor, et at.. G.R.
No. 151379, 14 Jan. 2009
May give an award higher than what was agreed upon by the management
and union –
• Cirtek Employees Labor Union — FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics, GR 190515, 15
November 2010.
May not use unaudited financial statements as basis for decision regarding
wage increases
• Asia Brewery vs. Tunay na Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Asia, G.R. 171594-
96, 18 September 2013
5.2 Nature and Effect of assumption and certification orders
• Intl. Pharma vs. Sec. of Labor, 205 SCRA 59
Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement during strike
proceedings
• Manila Diamond Hotel Employees' Union vs. Court of Appeals, et at., G.R.
No. 140518, 12/16/2004
5.3 Effect of Defiance of Return-to-Work Orders
a) Hearing not necessary; akin to contempt of court
• St. Scholastica's College vs. Hon. Ruben Torres, 210 SCRA 565
• Allied Banking Corp. vs. NLRC, supra 258 SCRA 724 [1996]
• Telefunken Semi-conductors, supra
b) CONTRA: New twist on defiance of return to work order

6. Picketing and other forms of concerted activities

DepŁ Order No. 9, Rule 22, Sec. 12

6.1 Nature of picketing

- includes stationing persons at the site of the labor dispute,
or even at run-away shop
• MSF Tire and Rubber vs. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 784 [1999]
• Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant EEs Union vs. Coca-Cola Bothers Phils. Inc., 512
SCRA 437 [2007]

6.2 Limitations:
6.2.1. Moving picket
6.2.2 Must not affect neutral parties
6.2.3 Private homes not allowed
6.2.4 Without violence and intimidation

6.3 Other forms of concerted activities

M. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
Articles 282 - 286, Labor Code; IRR, Book VI. R1 S1-14. Dept. Order No. 9, Rule XXIII, Secs. 1-9

1. GENERAŁLY:
1.1 No termination without just cause and due process;
rationale behind principle (Dept. Order No. 9, R23, S1)
Employee not required to prove innocence of the charges leveled against him.
• Phil. Transmarine vs. Carilla, 525 SCRA 586 [2007]
1.2 Management prerogative; company rules and regulations
• San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union vs. Opte, 170 SGRA 25 [1989]

2. SOME GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION, Art. 282-285, LC

JUST CAUSES FOR TERMINATION

• Toyota Motor. Phils. Workers assn. vs: NLRC: 537 SCRA 171.[2007]

BUT EMPLOYERS MUST PROVE FACT OF DISMISSAL FIRST:

• Lilia Labadan vs. Forest Hills Academy et. al., G.R. No. 172295, 23 Dec 2008
• Bitoy Javier (Danilo P. Javier) vs. Fly Ace Corporation/Flodelyn CastiIlo, G.R. No.
192558, 15 Feb. 2012.

24
2.1 Serious misconduct
• Torreda vs Toshiba, 523 SCRA 133

Fighting within company premises:

• Supreme Steel Pipe Corp. vs. Berdàje, 522 SCRA 155 [2007]
• Alex Gurango vs. Best Chemicals and Plastics Inc. Arid Moon Pyo Höng, G.R. No. G.R.
No. 174593, 25 August 2010
• Northwest Airlines vs. Concepcion Del Rosario, GR. 157633. 10 Sept 2014
• Cesar Naguit vs. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 188839, 22 June 2015

Attitude problem e.g., negative attitude:

• Cathedral School of Technology vs. NLRC, 251 SCRA 554 f1992]
• Citibank NA vs. NLRC, 544 SCRA [2008]

Serious misconduct by manager

• Sim vs. NLRC, 534 SCRA 515 [2007]
• Tirazona vs. Phil. Eds Techno-Service (PET INC.), G.R. No. 169712, 20 January 2009

Moonlighting:
• Capitol Wireless, Inc. vs. Balagot, 513 SCRA 672 [2007].

Theft by employee:
• Caltex (Phils.), Inc vs. Agad, G.R. No. 162017, 23 April 2010;
• Villamor Golf Club vs. Pehid, G.R. No. 166152, 04 October 2005
• Cosmos Bottling Vs. Wilson Fermin, G.R. 193676 and Wilson Fermin vs. Cosmos
Bottling, G.R. No. 194303, 20 June 2012

Drug abuse as serious misconduct:

See also: REQUIREMENTS FOR VALID DRUG TEST under RA 9156.
• AER vs. Progresibong Union sa AER, 15 July 2011 citing Nacague vs. Suplicio Case,
Aug 2010
• Bughaw Jr. Vs. Treasure Island, 550 SCRA 307 [2008]
• Plantation Bay Resort and Spa vs. Dubrico, 04 Dec 2009

Conspiracy in commission of theft:

• White Diamond Trading Corporation vs. NBLRC, G.R. No. 186019, 29 March 2010
• Sargasso Construction and Development Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 164118, 09
February 2010

Committing offenses penalized with three suspensions within a Twelve-month period:

• Samahan Ng Manggagawa Sa Hyak-NUHWRAlN Vs. Magsalin, GR No. 164939, 06 June
2011

Contrą: When not serious misconduct

• RCPI vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 114777, 05 July 1996 — staples case
• VH Manufacturing vs. NLRC, 322 SCRA 417 [2000] — sleeping on the job; dismissal
too harsh a penalty
• Collegio de San Juan de Letran — Calamba vs. Villas, 399 SCRA 550 [26 March 2003)

Uttering of incentives:
• Samson vs. NLRC, 330 SCRA 460 [2001]
• Punzal vs. ESTI Technologies, 518 SCRA 66 [2007]
• Roque B. Benitez, et al., vs. Santa Fe Moving and Rełocation Services, et al., G.R. No.
208163, 20 April 2015.

Libel:
• Visayan Electric Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP, et al. vs. Visayan Electric
Company, Inc., (VECO), G.R. No. 205575, 22 July 2015.

2.2 Gross insubordination

25
 • The Coffee Bean tea and Leaf Philippines, Inc. vs. Rolly P. Arenas, G.R. No. 208908,
March 11, 2015

Employee’s refusal to comply with rules and regulations by simple expedient of challenging
reasonableness, not allowable:
• GTE Directories vs. Sanchez, 197 SCRA 452 [1991)

What if the act were within discretionary powers of manager?

• ePacific Global Contact Center vs. Cabansay, 538 SCRA 498 [2007]
• Prudential Bank vs. Antonio Mauricio et at., GR 183350, 18 Jan 2012.

Contra: Refusal to comply due to valid reason

• Lores Realty Enterprises, Inc., Lorenzo Y. Sumulong III v. Virginia E. Pacia, G.R. No.
171189, 09 March 2011

Contra: Violation of company rules and regulations, tolerance thereof.

• Pemex, Inc. vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 121 [24 Jan 2000]; citing Tide Water Association Oil
Co. vs. Victory Employees and Laborer's Association, 85 Phil. 166.

2.3 Gross negligence / habitual neglect of duty

• Dr. Phylis C. Rio, et al, vs. Colegio de Sta. Rosa – Makati et. al., GR. No.
189629, 06 Aug 2014

Habitual absences/tardiness as form of neglect

• San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union v San Juan De Dios and
NLRC, 28 May 2005

May gross and habitual neglect likewise be considered as serious misconduct

• Arsenio Quiambao vs. Manila Electric Company, GR No. 171023, 18 December 2009.

Single isolated act of negligence insufficient ground for termination

• St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. and Robert Kuan vs. Estrelito Nazario. G.R. No. 152166,
20 October 2010

Totality of lnfractions ruling:

• Mansion Printing Center and Clement Cheng vs Diosdado Bitara, Jr. , G.R. No. 168120,
15 January 2012.

2.4 Abandonment
• Hilton Heavy Equipment vs. Ananias Dy, G.R. No. 164860, 02 February 2010.
• Essencia Q. Manarpis vs. Texan Philippines, Inc., et at. G.R. No. 197011, 28 January
2015

2.5 Fraud
• Felix vs. Enertech Systems, 355 SCRA 680 (2001]
• Pfizer vs. Lleander vs. Galan, G.R. No. 158460, 24 Aug. 2007
• Unilever vs. Ma. Ruby Rivera, G.R. No. 201701, 03 June 2013

N.B.: Concealment of pregnancy; dismissal too harsh

• Lakpue Drug vs. Balga, G.R. 166379, 20 Oct 2005]

2.6 Loss of Confidence/Breach of Trust

• Philippine Plaza Holdings vs. Episcòpe, G.R. No. 192826, 27 Feb 2013
• Hormillosa vs. Coca Cola, G.R. No. 198699, 09 Șeptember 2013
• St. Luke’s Medical Center Vs. Ma. Theresa Sanchez, G.R. No. 212054, 11 March 2015
• Prudential Bank vs. Antonio Mauricio. GR 183350, 18 Jan 2012
• Cecilia Manese vs. Jollibee Foods, G.R. No: 17-454, 11 October 2012
• De Leon Cruz vs. BPI, G.R. No. 173357, 13 February 2013

Two kinds of positions of trust identified:

• Abelardo Abel vs. Pfilex Mining, GR 178976, 31 July 2009
• Carlos Valenzuela vs. Caltex, GR 169965-66, 15 Dec 2010
• Mapili vs. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines G.R. No. 72506, 27 July 2011.

26
 Rank and file NOT entrusted with custody of property terminated for loss of trust and
confidence
• Century Iron Works vs. Banās, G.R. 18411”6, 19 June 2013

Difference in termination of confidential employees vs rank and file

• Phil. Transman Carriers vs. Carilla, 525 SCRA 893 [2007]
• Tirazona vs. CA, 548 SCRA 560 (2008)

Tampering of company records sufficient for loss of trust

• Eats Cetera Food Services vs. Letran, GR 179507 Oct 02 2009

AUTHORIZED CAUSES OF TERMINATION

2.7 Incompetence
• EDI Staffbuilders Intl. vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 409 [2007]

Contra: Inefficiency of employee; condonation by employer -

• Bebina G. Salvaloza vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Gulf Pacific Security
Agency, Inc., and Angel Quizon, G.R. No. 182086, 24 November 2010

2.8 Commission of a crime

2.9 Redundancy
• Sebuguero vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 532 [1995]
• Nelson Culili vs. Eastern Telecom, GR 165381, 09 Feb 2011

Alleged redundancy contradictory to “voluntary" retirement. —

• General Milling Corporation vs. Violeta L. Viajar, G.R. No. 181738, 30 January 2012.

2.10 Retrenchment or business reverses

• Businessday vs. NLRC, 221 SCRA 9
• San Miguel Jeepney vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 35 [1996]
• Navotas Shipyard Corporation and Jesus Villaflor vs. lnnocencio Montallana et. at., G.R.
No. 190053. 24 March 2014

Contra: separation pay not necessary in case of bankruptcy

• North Davao Mining vs. NLRC, 254 SCRA 721 [1996]

Audited financial statements as proof of serious business losses

• Virgilio Anabe vs. AsiaKonstruct, GR 183233, 23 Dec 2009

Notice to DOLE employee plus payment of separation pay to affected employees

• Sebuguero vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 533 (1995].

2.11 Closure
• Capitol Medical Center vs. Meris, 470 SCRA 125 [2005]
• Benson Industries Employees Union-ALU-TUCP et. al. vs. Benson Industries, Inc. G.R. No.
200746, 06 August 2014.

When done in bad faith:

• Penafrancia Tours and Travel Transport vs. Sarmiento, GR No. 178397, 20 Oct 2010

2.12 Disease - continued employment must be prejudicial to own health and co-workers
• Sevillana vs. International Corp., 356 SCRA 451 [16 April 2001]
• Romeo Villaruel vs. Yeo Han Guan, doing business under the name and style Yuhans
Enterprises, G.R. No. 169191, 01 June 2011
• Wuerth Philippines, Inc. vs. Rodante Ynson, G.R. No. 175932, 15 February 2012
• Eleazar S. Padillo vs. Rural Bank of Nabunturan, Inc. et al.

2.13 Merger or consolidation with another company

• First Gen. Marketing vs. NLRC, 223 SCRA

27
3. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:

3.1 Preventive suspension

• JRS Business vs. NLRC, 246 SCRA 445 [1995]
• Cadiz vs. Court of Appeals, 474 SCRA 232 [2005]

3.2 Suspension — where allowed for more than one month

3.3 Constructive dismissal -

• McMer Corporation, Inc., et al. vs. NLRC, et al. G.R. No. 193421, June 04,
2014

3.4 Floating status not to exceed 6 months

• Bebiana Salvaloza vs. NLRC Gulf Pacific Agency et at., GR 182086, 24 Nov 2010
• Nippon Housing Phil. Inc., et. at., vs. Maia Angela Reyes, G.R. No. 177816, 03 August
2011.

Suspension of operations on account of business losses

• Nasipit Lumber Company, et at. vs. National Organization of Workingmen (NOWM), et
al., G.R. No. 146225, 11/25/2004
• G.J.T. Rebuilders Machine Shop et at. vs. Ricardo Ambos et. al., G.R. No. 174184, 28
January 2015.

3.5 Last-In First-Out (LIFO) rule

• Maya Farms Employees Org. vs. NLRC, 229 SCRA 508

3.6 Totality of infractions rule

• Mendoza vs. NLRC, 195 SCRA 606 [1991]
• Villeno vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 108153 [26 Dec. 1995]
• Meralco vs. NLRC .
Contra: Acebedo Optical vs. NLRC, 527 SCRA 655 [2007]

3.7 Length of service

• Citibank NA vs. Gatchalian, 240 SCRA 212 [1995]
• Reynaldo Moya vs. First Solid Rubber, G.R. No. 184011, 18 September 2013

3.8 Demotion
• Leonardo vs. NLRC, 333 SCRA 589 [2000]

3.9 Employee’s abrasive character and failure to get along with other co-employees
• Cathedral School of Technology vs. NLRC, 251 SCRA 554 [1992]
• Heavylift Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 472 SCRA 541 [2005]
• Citibank NA vs. NLRC, 544 SCRA (2008).

3.10 Resignation instead of termination

• Mendoza vs. HMS Credit Corp., et. at., G.R. No. 187232, 17 April 2013; citing San Miguel
Properties vs. Gucaban, 654 SCRA 18 (2011]
• General Milling Corporation vs. Viajar, G.R. No. 181783, 30 January 2013; citing
Quevedo vs. Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc., 599 SCRA 438 [2009]

N.B.: Signing of Release Waivers and Quitclaims

• Becton Dickinson Phils. vs. NLRC, 475 SCRA 125 [2005] Goodrich Manufacturing vs. Ativo
et at., GR 188002, 01 Feb 2010

TELEX IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO LETTER OF RESIGNATION

3.11 Immorality/Sexual Harassment

Republic Act No. 7877
• Chua-Qua vs. Clave, 189 SCRA 117 [1990]
• Dr. Rico Jacutin vs. PP, G.R. No. 140604, 06 March 2002.
• Lourdes Domingo vs. Rogelio Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, 18 February 2008.

28
 • Cheryll Santos Leus vs. St. Scholastica's College Westgrave, et al., G.R. No. 187226,
January 28, 2015
• Cadiz vs. Brent Hospital and Colleges, G.R. No. 187417, 15 March 2016

Contra; when not sexual harassment

• Atty. Susan Aquino vs. Hon. Ernesto Acosta, Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals,
A.M. No. CTA —01-1, 02 April 2002.
Contra: when not immorality, re: Iive-in relationships
• Toledo vs. Toledo 544 SCRA 27

3.12 Termination instigated by Union on account of Union Security Clause

• Malayang Samahan sa M Greenfield, supra., 326 SCRA 428 [2000] Alabang Country vs.
NLRC, 545 SCRA 351 [2001).
• lnguillio vs. First Phil. Scales, GR No. 165407, 05 June 2009

3.13 Effect when employer choses to extend suspension period

• Pido vs. NLRC, 516 SCRA 68 [2007]

4. PROCEDURE TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT

Art. 282, Le; B5 R14 S1-11, lRFL Dept. Order No. 9, Rule 23, Sec. 2-9)

4.1 General Rule: Twin requirements of notice and hearing must be complied with for valid
termination

Reasonable period to answer, interpreted as days:

• King of Kings Transport vs. Mamac, 526 SCRA 116 (2007)

Requirements of Charge Sheet/Notice of Appraisal:

• Magro Placement vs. Hernandez, 526 SCRA 408 (2007]
• Genuino vs. NLRC, 539 SCRA 342 [2007j
• Unilever vs. Ma. Ruby Rivera, G.R. 201701, 03 June 2013

Is the employer required to inform the employee in the appraisal/charge sheet that ha may be
terminated for the infraction?
• Dolores T. Esguerra vs. Valle Verde Country Club et. at., G.R. No. 173012, 13 June 2012

4.2 Exception: WENPHIL doctrine, as affirmed by the

AGABON vs NLRC case [17 Nov. 2004];
SERRANO ruling overturned

• Wenphil vs. NLRC. 170 SCRA 69 [1989]

• Serrano vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 445 [2000]
• Agabon vs. NLRC, 442 SCRA 573 [17 Nov. 2004]
See: Section 5.2 on lllegality of tbc Manner of Dismissal

4.3 Administrative Hearing/investigation not required:

• Perez vs. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, 584 SCR A 110 [2009], En Bąnc

When employee has voluntarily admitted guilt

• Bernardo vs. NLRC, 255 SCRA 108 [1996]

4.4 Right to counsel on the part of the employee — is this mandatory and indispensable as part
of due process
• Lopez vs. Alturas Group, 11 April 2011,

4.4 Right to counsel on the part of the employee — is this mandatory and indispensable as part
of due process?
• Lopez vs. Alturas Group, 11 April 2011.

5. Burden of proof rests upon employer to show just cause and due process

• Segismundo vs. NLRC, 239 SCRA 167 [1994]

29
 • Domasig vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 779 (1996]
• Medenilla vs. Phil. Veterans Bank, 328 SCRA 1 [2000]
• De Guzman vs. NLRC, 540 SCRA 21 [2007]

Testimonies, how treated:

• Philippine Airlines vs. NLRC, 328 SCRA 273 [2000]

6. NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF DISMISSAL

Art. 279, LC: çL Art. 223. LC effect of appeal

6.1 Where there is just cause and due process, employee NOT entitled to
separation pay
• Unilever vs. Ruby Rivera, G.R. 201710, 03 June 2013

6.2 Where there is illegality of the act of dismissal - Dismissal without just cause

a) Reinstatement plus full backwages, or separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement

• Dela Cruz vs. NLRC, 268 SCRA 458 [1997j

Recomputation of backwages is automatically integrated into decision where party has appealed
the case:
• Dario Nacar vs. Gallery Frames et at., G.R. 189871, 13 Aug 2013

When reinstatement is not done in good faith; demotion

b) Moral and exemplary damages –
• Garcia vs. NLRC, 236 SCRA 632
• Zamboanga City Electric Coop. vs. Buat, 243 SCRA 47 [1995]
• Ford Phils. Vs. NLRC. 267 SCRA 320 (1997]
• Nueva Ecija Electric Coop. Vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 86 [2000]
• Permex Inc. vs. NLRC, 323 SCRA 121 [2000]

c) Attorney’s fees
• Taganas vs. NLRC, 248 SCRA 133 [1995)
• Tangga-an vs. Phil. Transmarine Carriers, Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 180636, 13 March 2013
• Czarina Malvar vs. KraR Food Phils, G.R.183952, 09 Sept 2013

d) Liability of corporate officers

• Carmen Oy-Dumalasa vs. Domingo Sabado S. Fernandez, et. at., G.R. No. 178760 [23 July
2009].
• Lynvil Fishing Enterpnses, Inc. vs. Andres G. Ariola, et al., G.R. No. 181974, 01 February
2012.
• Park Hotel, et at. vs. Manolo Soriano, et al., G.R. No. 171118, 10 September 2012.

6.3 Illegality in manner of dismissal - Dismissal without due process

a) SERRANO RULING (523 SCRA 445 [20 I) now overturned by AGABON VS. NLRC CASE (17 NOV.
2004);
b) Wenphil doctrine to apply per AGABON case; employee to be awarded indemnity in the
amount of P30,000.00
c) To be governed exclusively by civil code principles
• Aurora Lard Projects vs. NLRC, 266 SCRA 48 [1997]
d) Mere failure to comply with notice requirement on closure or dismissal does not amount to a
patently illegal act.
• Carag vs. NLRC, 520 SGRA 28 [2007]
e) If dismissal is for authorized cause BUT without due process, then P50,000.00; if dismissal is
for just cause BUT without due process, the P30,000.00.
• Jaka Food Processing vs. Pacot G.R. No. 151378, 28 March 2005
f) Factors to consider in determining nominal damages for failure to comply with due process
requirements.
• Industrial Timber Corp. v. Agabon, G.R. No. 164518, 30 March 20fB

30
 7. RELIEFS UNDER THE LABOR CODE

7.1 On reinstatement and strained relations

• Hunting vs. NLRC. 227 SCRA 571
• Congson vs. NLRC, 243 SCRA 260 [1995]
• Aguilar vs. Burger Machine Holdings, 516 SCRA 609

7.2 On actual reinstatement vs. payroll reinstatement; effect where the original decision
finding for illegal termination was reversed on appeal
• Genuino Vs. NLRC GR 142732 04 DEC 2007

7.3 Payment of separation pay not inconsistent with payment of backwages;

• Lim vs. NLRC, March 1989

7.4 ON BACKWAGES - Mercury drug rule overturned by RA 6715 Ferrer vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA 410
• Pines City Educational Center vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 655
• Golden Donuts vs. NLRC, 230 SCRA 153
• Balladares Jr. vs. NLRC, 245 SCRA 213 [1995]
• Bliss Devlpt. vs. NLRC, 247 SCRA 800 [1995

7.5 General Rule: Employee who is lawfully dismissed is not entitled to separation pay
Exception: DIREC (disease; installation of labor-saving devices; redundancy; retrenchment;
cessation of business)

Reference Materials:
Abad, Antonio H. Jr. and Abad, Anna Maria D. Compendium on Labor Law. Rex Book Store, 84 P. Florentino
St., Quezon City. Fifth edition, 2015.
Alcantara and Alcantara, Reviewer in Labor and Social Legislation, Millenium Edition, 2001.
Azucena, Cesario A., Jr. The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol. II, National Book Store, Inc.,
Manila, 2016 rev. ed.
Fernandez, Perfecto V. Labor Relations Law. Tala Publishing Corp., Quezon City, 1980.
Foz, Vicente, editor. The Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, with Appendices and
Abstracts, 2012 edition. Philippine Law Gazette, 28 Consult st., Fairview Park, Quezon City. (may be
purchased at National Book Store).
Ungos, Paulino D. Jr. and Ungos, Paulino Q. III, The Law on Labor Relations, Rex Book Store, 856 Nicanor
Reyes Sr. St., 1977 C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila, 2018.

UT IN OMNIBUS GLORIFICETUR DEUS!

31