LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
SECURITY OF TENURE
Security of Tenure only came about after the effectivity of
the Labor Code.
Security of tenure is a statutory right and NOT a
constitutional right.
Security of tenure can either be limited or qualified or full.
A right to continue employment, where there has been no
definite period agreed upon.
Security of tenure is not absolute. It is subject to just or
authorized causes that supervenes.
Security of tenure is an obligation on the part of the
employer.
The employee has no obligation at all to remain for the
rest of his life with the employer.
EMPLOYMENT AT WILL or TERMNABLE AT WILL; the
OPPOSITE OF SECURITY OF TENURE
Employment at will is not practiced here in the Philippines
and not provided under the Labor Code because it is only a
common law rule.
Employment at will is not provided under any law.
It is where an employment contract of indefinite duration
can be terminated by either the employer or the employee
at any time for any reason.
But also take note that in an ER-EE relationship, it is only
the employee has the right to get out of the relationship
regardless of whether the reason. Otherwise, it would
amount to an involuntary servitude.
DOUBLE SECURITY OF TENURE
Montemayor vs. Araneta (penned by Justice Enrique
Fernando)
- The employee who enjoys DOUBLE security of
tenure is a professor in a tertiary level educational
institution.
1) Security of tenure under the Labor Code
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
2) Academic freedom
An elementary or high school has security of tenure.
An elementary or high school cannot invoke double
security of tenure.
An elementary or high school cannot invoke academic
freedom.
Academic freedom’s essence is tenure. Without tenure, the
academic right becomes non-existent.
It is where the faculty (in a tertiary level) member would
not fear retribution that he is teaching something that has
not been established.
It is where the faculty member can pursue studies in his
specialty and make known his work or publish it without
fear of retribution.
FULL SECURITY OF TENURE = RANK AND FILE
REGULAR EMPLOYEES
A regular rank-and-file enjoys the highest security of
tenure.
1) Art. 294 Usual and Necessary Rule
Those who perform activities that are usual and necessary
to the usual trade and business of the employee.
A written or oral agreement between an ER and EE cannot
stipulate with each other that the other can never be a
regular employee.
EXCEPTION: Those who perform activities that are
usual and necessary but are not regular employees.
PRINCIPLE:
1. They enjoy security of tenure but only for a
LIMITED PERIOD (probationary employee,
project employee, seasonal employee, they
enjoy security of tenure but limited or by
degrees).
1
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
1. Managerial employees
CAVEAT:
Not all regular employees enjoy security of tenure. Such as
managerial employees.
Managerial employees are regular employees.
Managerial employees have no security of tenure.
Managerial employees’ employment is based on
confidentiality and trust.
They are one of the employees who are the only one who
can be dismissed on the ground of loss or trust confidence.
MGG Marine Services vs. NLRC; Artemio Panganiban
A chief finance officer whose confidence was given by
the owners of the company and was let go by reason of
the fact that she did acts in contravention of the higher
authorities, was dismissed for cause (fault of the
employee) without any benefits.
2. Project employees
Employment has been:
a. fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which
b. has been determine at the time of the engagement
of the employee or where the work or service to be
performed
Project employee’s engagement is only:
a. Up to the end of the project; or
b. Up to the end your activity in the project
(as the case may be)
For example:
You have been hired as a painter for the interior of the walls
of the building. The entire project includes the building of
the house, garden, etc.
When the painting of the walls (activity) has already been
finished, your engagement has expired.
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
Even if the house has not been fully built or there are still
activities needed to be finished, the painter’s activity has
already ended.
Project employee’s term are expired and without any
separation pay.
EFFECTS WHEN THE PROJECT EMPLOYEE HAS
BEEN HIRED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR
The painter becomes a regular employee for as long as the
activity is still there.
Once he is a regular employee, he can only be terminated
or dismissed to remove him. There will no longer be any
expiration.
Removal of a project employee who has become a regular
employee will amount to illegal dismissal and payment of
backwages.
Fegurin vs. NLRC
The four of the petitioners 3 had been working with the
Company for nine years, one 4 for 8 years, another 5 for
6 years, the shortest term being 3 years. The
Construction Company has not rebutted petitioners'
averments that they had been employed for several years
before their services were terminated. Now the
employees allege that they have become regular
employees and they were illegally dismissed for union
activities on September 28, 1977 and prayed for
reinstatement with backwages.
Project employees are those employed in connection
with a particular construction project.
Non-project employees are those employed by a
construction company without any particular project.
The nature of the work of petitioners, that of carpenter,
laborer or mason, their respective jobs would actually be
continuous and on-going. When a project to which they
are individually assigned is completed, they would be
assigned to the next project or a phase thereof. In other
words, they belonged to a "work pool" from which the
Company would draw workers for assignment to other
projects at its discretion. They are, therefore, actually
"non-project employees" and are considered as a work
pool employee.
2
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
The Company had reported petitioners for registration
and membership with the Social Security System, and
is an implicit admission by it of the actual dates of
employment of petitioners as above-enumerated, and
not as stated in the individual Notices of Employment
allegedly commencing in 1975, 1976 and 1977, or just
some months prior to their dismissal in 1977.
The Solicitor General is also of the view that petitioners
are regular and permanent employees and has
recommended that they be reinstated with backwages.
PNCC vs. NLRC
Emelito whose employment was an oiler was terminated
on the ground that there was a completion of the project
to which he was assigned.
A project employee is one whose "employment has been
fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has been determined
at the time of the engagement of the employee or where
the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature
and the employment is for the duration of the season."
(Sec. 280, Labor Code; Sandoval Shipping Inc. vs. NLRC,
136 SCRA 674.)
In finding that Porciuncula was a regular employee, the
Labor Arbiter noted that it was the petitioner's practice to
rehire him after the completion of every project and this
re-hiring continued throughout Porciuncula's 13 years of
employment in the company.
The Labor Arbiter also observed that the petitioner never
reported the completion of its projects and the
termination of the employees (like Porciuncula) in its
finished projects, to the nearest Public Employment
Office as required by Policy Instruction No. 20 of the
Secretary of Labor. In the case of Ochoco vs. NLRC, 120
SCRA 774, the failure of the employer to report to the
nearest employment office the termination of the workers
everytime it completed a project was considered by this
Court as proof that they were not project employee and
hence, regular employees.
3. Seasonal employees
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
Manila Hotel vs. CIR
The chamber maid was recruited for two seasons.
Each season for 6 months. 1 season of 6 months x 2 = 1
year.
She was deemed as a regular employee.
SUPPOSE: Applying the Manila Hotel vs. CIR, suppose:
An interior decorator is hired for the 2 seasons (for the
summer season and Christmas season).
Q: He was hired from March to June (3 months) for the
summer season and September to January (4 months) for the
Christmas season. Is he deemed a regular employee?
NO. He was not hired to an accumulated period equivalent
of one year. The one year period here does not need to be
continuous or unbroken it needs to be accumulated.
Q: Does the designer have to be employed for an equivalent
of one year within one year?
NO. It can be broken.
EFFECTS WHEN THE SEASONAL OR PROJECT
EMPLOYEES HAVE BECOME REGULAR EMPLOYEES
The period during which they are were not employed are
deemed to be considered only as on leave of absence
without pay until they are re-employed. Corollary, during
the time that there is no project, there can be no demand
for compensation by the regular seasonal or project
employees since they are on LOA without pay.
4. Term employment or Bona Fide Term
Employment
Brent School vs. Zamora
In educational institutions, like the dean, principal,
academic head, etc.
They are not forever positions. It is always with a term,
where after a certain term if he runs out of effectivity he,
can replaced.
5. Re-hired after retirement
3
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
UST vs. NLRC
Section 1.Retirement age — It is hereby agreed and
stipulated that the compulsory retirement age for faculty
members is 65 years, provided that faculty members who
have reached the age of 65 years may be granted
extension of tenure unless they are physically
incapacitated or are manifestly inefficient or
incompetent, or are otherwise removed for cause. They
shall continue to enjoy the usual benefits and privileges
until the extension of their tenure is validly denied by
the UNIVERSITY in consultation with the UNION or
until they are validly separated from the service,
provided that their period of extended service shall not
be credited for purposes of retirement.
Bonifacio upon reaching the age of 65 has been denied
extension of tenure when he reached the age of 65.
They filed an unfair labor practice before the NLRC.
It is important to state that upon the compulsory
retirement of an employee or official in the public or
private service his employment is deemed terminated.
The matter of extension of service of such employee or
official is addressed to the sound discretion of the
employer. It is a privilege only the employer can grant.
In the case of Prof. Francisco Bonifacio, the non-
extension of his service was because he did not apply for
the same but also because at the time he retired there
was an administrative case against him for allegedly
immoral acts. Nevertheless, he executed an affidavit
stating that he did not authorize the filing of the petition
in his behalf and that he is not interested in the
extension of his service.
6. Probationary Employee
Art. 281. Probationary employment. Probationary
employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date
the employee started working, unless it is covered by an
apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The
services of an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or
when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with reasonable standards made known by the
employer to the employee at the time of his engagement.
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary
period shall be considered a regular employee.
Requisites:
(1) from the start you are told the duration of your probation
and
(2) the standards by which you should aim to comply with
so that you are made regular
Otherwise, if you have been rendering what is usual and
necessary without have been informed of your
probationary status, you are a REGULAR EMPLOYEE.
PRINCIPLES:
1. The 6 month period can actually be cut short by
an employer most especially if he has already
attained the qualifications for regularization.
2. The 6 month period IS NOT mandatory but
merely directory.
3. A probationary employee who is retrenched is
entitled to separation benefits.
Who are those who does not have a probationary period:
PIRATED EMPLOYEES or those coming from a competitor
company. At the first day of work, they are immediately
regular.
Abott Laboratories vs. Alcaraz
Pearlie Ann Alcaraz, applied and was under probation for
6 months. She was also notified of her duties and was
given a probationary performance standards and
evaluation which she have to apply in her task of
evaluation the staffs.
A probationary employee, like a regular employee,
enjoys security of tenure (but not full, only absolute or
qualified).
The services of an employee who has been engaged on
probationary basis may be terminated for any of the
following:
(a) a just or
(b) an authorized cause; and
(c) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the
employer.
4
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
(b) Provided that: the employer shall make known
to the employee the standards under which he will qualify
as a regular employee at the time of his engagement.
Where no standards are made known to the employee at
that time, he shall be deemed a regular employee.
Abott indicated the job description and Alcaraz was
communicated of her duties as a probationary employee
and her failure to perform led her to inadequately perform
and would led to her non-regularization and her
termination.
7. Legitimate job contracting
Kimberly-Clark case: The Supreme Court has taken judicial
notice of the practice of contracting these employees.
Example: A security guard (hired by a manpower service) in
a bank cannot be a regular employee of the bank.
TERMINATION IN GENERAL
TERMINATION AND DISMISSAL has two-fold due
process requirements:
1. Substantive aspect
a. Just causes
b. Authorized causes; and
2. Procedural aspect
a. Statutory due process and
b. Contractual due process
DISMISSAL
SUBSTANTIVE ASPECT
Dismissal is where there is cessation of an employment due
to a cause attributable to the employee.
Dismissal is a termination with just cause.
The employee has committed a wrongful act or omission.
If you are dismissed, you do not have any separation pay.
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
If you are terminated, you may or may not have separation
pay depending on the grounds.
JUST CAUSES (Art. 297)
1. Serious Misconduct
2. Gross and habitual neglect of duties
3. Fraud and willful breach of trust
4. Commission of crime or offense by the
employee against the person of his employer,
immediate member, his family or
representatives
5. Other causes analogous
Prohibited Activities
1. Union officers who knowingly participate in
an illegal strike
2. Any employee, union officer or ordinary
member who knowingly participates in the
commission of the illegal acts during a strike
(regardless of whether the strike is legal or not)
National Interest Cases
Violations of DOLE orders.
Union Security Clause
Such as failure to join the union or to maintain his
membership in good standing therein.
THUS:
1. An employee who participated in a legal strike is
terminated.
2. An employee who committed illegal acts during a
legal strike may be dismissed.
JUST CAUSES UNDER JURISPRUDENCE:
1. Violation of Company Rules
- It must not be one that its description and
phraseology are not found in Art. 297 nor in
any other provisions of the Labor Code.
Example: “If to obey traffic rules and
regulations as well as the company policies” is
so fundamental and so universal that any
employee is expected to satisfy the requirement
whether or not he has been so informed.
2. Theft of property owned by a co-employee
3. Incompetence or ineptitude
5
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
4. Failure to attain work quota
5. Failure to comply with weight standards of
employer such as in cases of flight attendant
6. Attitude problem
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
Requisites:
1. It must be serious
2. It must relate to the performance of the
employee’s duties
3. It must be shown that he has become unfit to
continue working for the employer and
4. It must have been performed with wrongful
intent
IMPORTANT:
1. It might be a series of irregularities, when they are
already put together, may constitute serious
misconduct
2. Committing libel against an immediate superior
is serious misconduct.
3. Disrespectful conduct is NOT serious misconduct
when provoked by the superior.
4. Organizing a credit union (paluwagan) by
employees in a bank is serious misconduct.
5. The act of a teacher to change the failing grade of
a student is serious misconduct.
6. Using company property for personal business is
serious misconduct.
INSUBORDINATION OR WILFULL
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE LAWFUL ORDERS
1. It must have been done willfuly
2. There must have been a reasonable and lawful
company rule, regulation or policy and made
known to the employee and must pertain to the
duties for which he has been engaged to discharge
For there to be a valid company rules and regulations:
1. It must be lawful and reasonable
2. Sufficiently known to the employee and;
3. In connection with the duties for which the
employee has been engaged to discharge
SOME PRINCIPLES
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
1. A Company rule and regulation or policies are
presumed valid until amended or nullified. Until
and unless the rules or orders are declared to be
illegal or improper, the employees ignore or
disobey them at their own peril.
2. If there has been toleration or acquiesced by
superiors cannot be a valid ground to terminate
3. Laxity of leniency in the enforcement of the rules
cannot be an excuse for the commission of
wrongful acts
4. When a memo has been released with a
requirement that he must answer in the memo,
another notice is required in case of termination
on the ground of failure to answer a memo to
explain (procedural).
5. Refusal to undergo drug testing is both
misconduct and willful insubordination
ABANDONMENT
1. The employee must have failed to report for work
or must have been absent without valid or
justifiable reason
2. There has been 4 months of abandonment
3. There must have been clear intention on the part
of the employee to sever the ER-EE
PRINCIPLES:
1. Abandonment is a factual issue.
2. There must be three notices:
a) That the employee must explain why he
should not be declared at to have abandoned
his job (show-cause)
b) Restate
c) Employer’s decision to dismiss him on the
ground of abandonment
3. The immediate filing of the employee for illegal
dismissal and reinstatement negates abandonment
BUT if what is prayed for is separation pay and
not reinstatement, such does not negate
abandonment.
EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROCEDURE FOR DISMISSAL FOR CAUSE
Payment of FINE:
1. 30,000 pesos to the employee
FRAUD AND LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
6
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
Art. 297 of the Labor Code
Fraud is a willful breach by the employee of the trust
reposed by his employer or duly authorized representative.
PRINCIPLES:
1. Fraud necessarily follows loss of trust and
confidence against the employer.
2. Loss of trust and confidence does not necessarily
result in the latter’s loss of trust and confidence in
the former.
3. The fact that the employer did not suffer damage
damage because of its timely discovery does not
excuse the latter from any culpability
4. The returning or restitution does not have
absolutory effect.
Willful Breach of Trust and Confidence
1. Employee holds a position of trust and confidence
(e.g. managerial employee)
• Those who have in their care, custody, handling
or care and protection of the employer’s money,
assets or property.
IMPORTANT:
An ordinary rank and file employee cannot be dismissed
based on loss of trust and confidence.
2. Betrayal of the employer’s trust must be real.
3. Breach must be willfully, knowingly and purposely
and without justifiable cause
4. The act must be in relation to his work which
would render him unfit
PRINICIPLES:
1. The mere fact that a person was just a supervisor
was not charged with the custody of the company’s
money or property is inconsequential because he
belongs to the first class of employees occupying
positions of trust and not to the fudiciary rank-
and-file class.
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
2. Every employee must enjoy some degree of trust
and confidence from the employer as that is one
reason why he was employed in the first place BUT
for as long as his job is not entrusted, safekeeping
and safeguarding company policies, management
privy to these confidential matters.
3. Loss of trust must be established by factual
evidence.
4. Long years of service, absence of derogatory record
are deemed inconsequential insofar as loss of trust
and confidence.
5. Restitution will not absolve.
6. Suffer of damage are not relevant.
COMMISSION OF CRIME OR OFFENSE
The following are the requisites for the valid invocation of
this ground:
1) A crime or offense was committed by the
employee;
2) It was committed against any of the following
persons:
a. His employer
b. Any immediate member of his employer’s
family or
- Parents
- Husband or wife
- Children
- Other descendants and ascendancts
- Brothers and sisters, full of half blood
c. His employer’s duly authorized representative
PRINCIPLES:
1. Work-relation is not necessary.
Example: The commission of the crime of physical injuries
against the employer was by reason of personal issues
between them and not regarding work is irrelevant,
automatic a valid ground for commission of crime or
offense.
Other causes
1. Disease
Villaruel vs. Yeo Han Guan
On December 12, 1998, he reported for work but was no
longer permitted to go back because of his illness; he
asked that respondent allow him to continue working but
7
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
be assigned a lighter kind of work but his request was
denied; instead, he was offered a sum of P15,000.00 as his
separation pay; however, the said amount corresponds
only to the period between 1993 and 1999; petitioner
prayed that he be granted separation pay computed
from his first day of employment in June 1963, but
respondent refused.
Article 284 thereof, which reads as follows:
An employer may terminate the services of an employee
who has been found to be suffering from any disease and
whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is
prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-
employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay
equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half
(½) month salary for every year of service whichever is
greater, a fraction of at least six months being considered
as one (1) whole year.
Here it was shown that the EE did not ask for
reinstatement and was the only one who withdrew from
work and never intended to return to his employment
because of his health, which despite being offered to
return, refused and was tantamount to resignation.
The Court applied compassionate justice here were the EE
here was already been employed for more than 35 years
to the ER. Thus, the ER shall grant the financial assistance
needed.
2. Retirement
Padillo vs. Rural Bank
EE was employed by Rural Bank. EE was later on
diagnosed with Hypertension S/P with short term
memory loss, the nature was total disability. On
September 10, 2007, he said that he wanted an early
retirement.
Art. 297 (disease) does not apply because it was EE not
the bank who severed the relationship with the bank. 297
is only applicable where the ER was the one who
terminated the services of the employee who was found
to have terminated his employment.
An employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or
more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby
declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire
and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at
least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service,
a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as
one whole year.
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term
one half (1/2) month salary shall mean fifteen (15) days
plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the
cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service
incentive leaves. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Simply stated, in the absence of any applicable agreement,
an employee must (1) retire when he is at least sixty (60)
years of age and (2) serve at least (5) years in the company
to entitle him/her to a retirement benefit of at least one-
half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, with a
fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one
whole year.
Unfortunately, while Padillo was able to comply with the
five (5) year tenure requirement as he served for twenty-
nine (29) years he, however, fell short with respect to the
sixty (60) year age requirement given that he was only
fifty-five (55) years old when he retired. Therefore,
without prejudice to the proceeds due under the Philam
Life Plan, petitioners claim for retirement benefits under
Art. 300 must be denied.
IMPORTANT:
1. If by reason of the pendency of the case the
employee has attained retirement age and
subsequently, there was proof of illegal dismissal,
the employee can no longer demand for
reinstatement.
3. Omnibus Code
PNOC-EDC vs. NLRC
Those appointed are deemed resigned upon filing the
certificate of candidacy.
Regardless if with or without an original charter.
4. Conflict of Interest or Acceptance of
Incompatible Office
Manila Broadcasting vs. NLRC
8
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
There was an unwritten company policy that any
employee who files a COC for any elective or local office
as resigned from the company. Nevertheless, there is no
prohibition against a company to require them as a
matter of policy.
Remember that RA 6646 does not require mass media
commentators to resign they are just required to go on
leave.
When he was deemed resigned, nevertheless, there was a
showing that the policy that it was not properly
promulgated and made to know to all employees. Thus,
the filing of his COC, he is ordered reinstatement with
backwages.
5. Continuation of Employment is Prohibited By
Law
Great Pacific Life vs. NLRC
The Court held therein that an indemnity, not
"separation pay", must be imposed on the employer for
failure to observe the procedural requirements of notice
and hearing prior to the dismissal of an employee for
just cause. Considering the circumstances of the case at
bar, petitioner must indemnify.
6. Sexual Harassment
Villarama vs. NLRC
He refused to be terminated on the ground that the
seriousness of his offense would not warrant his
separation from service. So he alleged in his letter to Mr.
Prieto dated August 16, 1989. But even in this letter,
petitioner admitted his "error" vis-a-vis Miss Gonzaga.
As a manager, petitioner should know the evidentiary
value of his admissions. Needless to stress, he cannot
complain there was no valid cause for his separation.
Moreover, loss of trust and confidence is a good ground
for dismissing a managerial employee. petitioner acted in
collusion with the immoral designs of De Jesus and did
not give due regard to Gonzaga's feeling on the matter
and acted in chauvinistic disdain of her honor, thereby
justifying public respondent's finding of sexual
harassment. Thus, petitioner not only failed to act
accordingly as a good father of the family because he was
not able to maintain his moral ascendancy and authority
over the group in the matter of morality and discipline
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
of his subordinates, but he actively facilitated the
commission of immoral conduct of his subordinates by
driving his car into the motel.
He failed to live up to this higher standard of
responsibility when he succumbed to his moral perversity.
And when such moral perversity is perpetrated against
his subordinate, he provides justifiable ground for his
dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. It is the right,
nay, the duty of every employer to protect its employees
from over sexed superiors.
Domingo vs. Rayala
There is no need that there be a demand, request or
requirement of a sexual favor as a condition for
continued employment or for promotion to a higher
position.
The fact that the employer was squeezing the shoulders
of the employee, running his fingers across her neck and
tickling her ear with the alleged promise of giving her
money for school expenses was already sufficient to
dismiss the employee.
Aquino vs. Rayala
The acts of Acosta was usual gestures of friendship
during festive occasions with people present could not be
held as one which is sexual harassment.
7. Resignation
Phil. Overseas Drilling vs. Minister
It appears that complainant was a Chief Geologist of the
respondent since 1969 up to December 18, 1979, earning
a monthly salary of P6,740.00. Admittedly, the
complainant filed his resignation letter on August 29,
1979 effective September 30, 1979. For failure of
respondent to act upon his resignation, complainant
wrote a letter on November 20, 1979 requesting for the
payment of his retirement and/or separation benefits
similarly granted to employees per company’s standing
policy. Much to complainant’s dismay, he received
instead a report of resignation from the respondent on
December 7, 1979, indicating his resignation on
September 29, 1979.
9
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
That there was a company policy to grant separation
benefit or pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every
year of service to employees who were similarly situated
as private respondent, is supported by substantial
evidence which means "such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion." (Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635; Cañete v.
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, May 8, 1985,
136 SCRA 302, 308). Documents to this effect were
presented by private respondent at the hearing on
January 24, 1980 as Annexes "D" thru "D-7" of his
position paper.
Having found that there was a company policy to that
effect, respondent Director correctly held that private
respondent was legally entitled to a separation benefit or
pay equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of
service, notwithstanding the fact that he had voluntarily
resigned.
8. Permanent Disability
Alpha Ship Management Corporation et. al vs. Eleosis
V. Calo
It can be said that an employee’s disability becomes
permanent and total when so declared by the company-
designated physician, or, in case of absence of such a
declaration either of fitness or permanent total disability,
upon the lapse of the 120 or 240 -day treatment period,
while the employee’s disability continues and he is unable
to engage in gainful employment during such period,
and the company-designated physician fails to arrive at a
definite assessment of the employee’s fitness or disability.
This is true "regardless of whether the employee loses the
use of any part of his body."
Respondent was repatriated on October 12, 2004 and
underwent treatment by the company-designated
physician, Dr. Cruz, until October 14, 2005, or for a
continuous period of over one year–or for more than the
statutory 120-day or even 240-day period. During said
treatment period, Dr. Cruz did not arrive at a definite
assessment of respondent’s fitness or disability; thus,
respondent’s medical condition remained unresolved. It
was only on July 18, 2006 that respondent was declared fit
to work by Dr. Cruz. Such declaration, however, became
irrelevant, for by then, respondent had been under
medical treatment and unable to engage in gainful
employment for more than 240 days. Pursuant to the
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
doctrine in Kestrel, the conclusive presumption that the
respondent is totally and permanently disabled thus
arose. The CA is therefore correct in declaring that
respondent suffered permanent total disability.
9. Detention by Military without Basis Merely
Suspends Employment and Does Not Justify
Dismissal
Magtoto vs. NLRC
Magtoto was working with Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories,
Inc. On September 3, 1980, Magtoto was arrested by
virtue of an ASSO who was charged with violation of
Art. 136 and 138 of the Revised Penal Code for
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Rebellion and Art.
138 of the Revised Penal Code.
The employer tries to distance itself from the detention
by stressing that the petitioner was dismissed due to
prolonged absence. However, Mr. Magtoto could not
report for work because he was in a prison cell. The
detention cannot be divorced from prolonged absence
neither can it be called abandonment. One caused the
other. Since the causes for the detention, which in turn
gave the employer a ground to dismiss the petitioner,
proved to be non-existent, we rule that the termination
was illegal and reinstatement is warranted.
Only 25 days from his arrest, the petitioner was
dismissed from his job. When the petitioner tried to
return to work immediately after his release, the
employer gave him the same excuse that its report to the
Ministry of Labor and Employment was pending action
and, therefore, reinstatement was “inappropriate.”
The cause for which the petitioner was separated from
work was found to be non-existent, and thus, the
dismissal of the petitioner was without just cause.
10. CARL
NFL vs. NLRC
The closure of the plantation due to the act of the
government to benefit the petitioners, as members of the
Patalon Estate Agrarian Reform Association, by making
their agrarian lot beneficiaries of said estate, the
petitioners are not entitled to separation pay.
10
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
11. Constructive Dismissal
OSS Security vs. NLRC
As a lady security guard she was assigned to render
security services to the different clients of petitioner.5
She was last assigned at the Vicente Madrigal
Condominium II located in Ayala Avenue, Makati.6
In a memorandum dated July 30, 1991 addressed to
petitioner's company President, retired General Honesta
Isleta, the Building Administrator of VM Condominium
II, Licerio E. Baguyong, complied of the laxity of the
guards in enforcing security measures.
In compliance therewith10, petitioner issued Duty Detail
Order No. 0044611 on August 1, 1991 relieving private
respondent and another lady security guard, Digna
Suelan, of their assignment at VM Condominium II
effective August 2, 1991 for reassignment to other units
or detachments where vacancy exists.
On August 3, 1991, petitioner issued Duty Detail Order
No. 0060112, which detailed private respondent to the
Minami International Corporation in Taytay, Rizal from
August 3 to September 2, 1991 to replace lady security
guard Susan Tan who filed her vacation leave for August
1991. However, it appears that private respondent did
not report for duty at her new assignment.
ervice-oriented enterprises, such as petitioner's business
of providing security services, generally adhere to the
business adage that "the customer or client is always
right". To satisfy the interests, conform to the needs, and
cater to the whims and wishes of its clients, along with
its zeal to gain substantial returns on its investments,
employers adopt means designed towards these ends.
These are called management prerogatives in which the
free will of management to conduct its own affairs to
achieve its purpose, takes from. Accordingly, an
employer can regulate, generally without restraint,
according to its own discretion and judgment, every
aspect of business.
Thus, the transfer of an employee ordinarily lies within
the ambit of management prerogatives. However, a
transfer amounts to constructive dismissal when the
transfer is unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
the employee, and it involves a demotion in rank or
diminution of salaries, benefits and other privileges.
In the case at bench, nowhere in the record does it show
that that the transfer of private respondent was anything
but done in good faith, without grave abuse of
discretion, and in the best interest of the business
enterprise.
In the employment of personnel, the employer can
prescribe the hiring, work assignments, working
methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be
used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers,
working regulations, transfer of employees, work
supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline,
dismissal and recall of work, subject only to limitations
imposed by laws.
12. Merger or consolidation
BPI vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao
The Union Shop Clause in the CBA between BPI and
BPI Union must be respected. Failure of an employee to
join the union is authorized cause for BPI.
Unionism > security of tenure
Nevertheless, they shall be afforded ample opportunity
to whether or not to join the union.
13. Union Officers who knowingly participate in an
ILLEGAL STRIKE
Jackbilt vs. Jackbilt Industries
Art. 294(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person
engaged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to
and egress from the employer’s premises.
When the employees have been found to prevented the
free entry into and exit of vehicles from petitioner’s
compound act, respondent’s officers and employees
clearly committed illegal acts in the course of March 9,
1998.
Thus, the unlawful means in the strike made the strike
illegal. No need for the filing to declare the strike as
illegal.
11
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
14. Union Officers and member who participate in
a PROHIBITED STRIKE
St. Scholastica’s College vs. Torres
15. Violation of Exogamy Policy
Duncan vs. Glaxo-Welcome
Exogamy – the rule requiring selection of a marriage
partner outside of a particular group.
In this case, the prohibition of marrying an employee of
the competitor company is valid.
It is only reasonable for the prohibition of marital
relationship with the other company because these
relationships might compromise the interests of Glaxo.
Dai-Chi Electronics Manufacturing Corp vs. Villarama
Anti-Competition Clause
“For a period of 2 years, the employee shall not be
connected or to be a consultant and/or be an informative
body directly with any business firm, entity or
undertaking engaged in a business similar to or in
competition with that of the employer”
Issues as to damages regarding this law, are NOT
before the Labor Arbiter but before the regular courts.
If an employee violated the rule under this law and an
employer files for an action for damages, he cannot go
before the LA but before civil courts.
16. No-Spouse Employment Policy
Star Paper vs. Simbol
For there to be a no-spouse employment policy there
must be a bona fide occupational qualification which
justifies an employer’s no-spouse rule, the exception is
interpreted and narrowly by these state courts. There
must be a compelling business necessity for which no
alternative exists other than the discriminatory
practice.
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
1) The employment qualification is reasonably
related to the essential operation of the job
2) There is basis for believing that all or
substantially all persons would be unable to
perform the duties of the job
All these must be proven by the employer.
17. Test Results
Plantation Bay Resort vs. Dubrico
The fact that the confirmatory test results came first
before the drug testing cannot be the basis for the
termination of the employees. There shall drug testing
first before the test results were released.
But again, failure to present to drug tests is both serious
misconduct and willful breach of lawful orders.
18. Knowingly violating the Union Security Clause
stipulated in the CBA
General Milling Corp. vs. Casio et. al
In terminating the employment of an employee by
enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs
only to determine and prove that:
(1) the union security clause is applicable;
(2) the union is requesting for the enforcement of the
enforcement and
(3) there is sufficient evidence to support the decision of
the union to expel the employee from the union.
PICOP Resources vs. Tañeca
There was no sufficient evidence to support the decision
of the union to expel the employee from the union. The
mere signing of the Election of FFW is not sufficient
ground to terminate the employment. Nothing in the
records would show that the respondents failed to
maintain their membership in good standing in the
Union.
19. For Schools: Failure of Regular Faculty
Members to Obtain a Minimum Efficiency
Rating of 85% in two previous school years as
required by the school’s teacher manual
Peña vs. NLRC and Naga Parochial School
12
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
The fact that there is no evidence in this case does not
bear our petitioner’s misgivings. To the contrary, it
appears that only the six petitioners out of the school’s
47 teachers, failed to obtain the grade of 85%
ST. Mary’s Dipolog City vs. Palacio
A DECS Memo was passed that teachers must already
be able to register as professional teachers on September
19, 2000.
The same law provides a grace period that those who
failed the examination between 1996 and 2000 shall
continue teaching if they obtain temporary or special
permits as para-teachers.
However, the teachers here were terminated on March
31, 2000, way before September 19, 2000 (which is the
deadline set forth by the law).
Although at such time, the dismissal was premature but
there could no longer be an order for reinstatement
since they were still unable to register after September
19, 2000. They can only be entitled to backwages of
March 31 – September 19.
20. Probationary Employment
Abbott Laboratories vs. Alcaraz
The requirements needed on the part of the employer for
probationary employment:
1. Communicate the duration of the probationary
period
2. Communicate the regularization standards
3. Both of these are communicated at such time of
the employee’s engagement
Exception where there is no need to comply with these
requirements are:
1) Jobs which are self-descriptive in nature for
instance, in the case of maids, cooks, drivers or
messengers.
2) Employee acts in contrary to basic knowledge
(even if it is not provided in the regularization)
and was not able to perform the duties and
regularization is a justifiable basis for a
probationary employee’s non-regularization.
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
PROCEDURAL ASPECT
1. Two notices in a dismissal with JUST CAUSE:
a. To those affected employees;
b. To the employer (show cause or explain)
c. The subsequent notice providing for the dismissal
and what were the grounds for such.
d. There is no payment of separation pay if it was an
act imputable to the employer
PEREZ VS. DORIA
Ample opportunity to be heard may in fact include an
actual hearing but it is not limited to a formal hearing only.
IMPORTANT:
The Perez vs. Doria doctrine DOES NOT ABSOLUTELY
PROHIBIT the holding of a formal hearing.
In other words, the actual or formal is not absolutely
necessary to satisfy the employee’s right to be heard.
A) Ample opportunity to be heard means any
meaningful opportunity verbal or written given to
the employee to answer the charges against him
and submit evidence in support of his defense.
B) Formal hearing is mandatory only when requested
by the employee in writing or substantial
evidentiary or when the company rule or practice
requires it or when similar circumstances justify it.
C) Ample opportunity to be heard under the LC >>>
hearing and conference requirement under the
IRR
AS TO THE ISSUE ON ACTUAL ADVERSARIAL
PROCEEDINGS:
1. Actual adversarial proceedings may be necessary
for clarification purposes or when there is a
propound searching questions to unclear
witnesses.
2. Must be made before the Labor Arbiter.
In application of Perez Doctrine
1. When the notice of preventive suspension
required the employees to explain within 48 hours
to show cause why = ample opportunity to be
heard.
13
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
PROCEDURE for DISMISSAL with JUST CAUSE IN A
NUTSHELL:
First Notice: Notice to the EE (by the employer)
• Apprises you of the acts of omissions that
constitute the just cause of your termination.
• This must be a written notice.
• Gives the employee at least 72 hours to explain
in writing why he shall not be dismissed.
IMPORTANT: Even if the employee is ignorant or does not
know how to read there shall still be a written notice for
compliance of the law.
Second Notice: Notice to the ER
• The employee will explain within 5 calendar days
from receipt of the first notice sent by the ER.
• If there is silence on the part of the employee,
the investigation will continue, ex-parte.
• If the EE refuses to receive notice = serve it
through registered mail to the last known
address,
• But when there is an admission on the part of the
employee, there is no longer any proceedings.
The proceeding or investigation will be rendered
as superfluous.
Thus, in a dismissal with just cause there must
be at least two notices which are indispensable,
it cannot be lower than two notices but may be
more than two notices.
IMPORTANT:
1. A confession made by an alleged co-conspirator
cannot be the basis of dismissing the employee, it
must be corroborated with other evidences.
• When adversarial proceedings is wanting because
company policy allows such, then the employee is
not precluded from having or bringing his own
counsel.
Third Notice (but second notice from the ER): The findings of
fact and recommendations.
• There must be the second notice from the
employer which is made by the lawyer stating
therein what are the grounds for the dismissal and
justifications.
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
• From the general manager
• The official notice of DISMISSAL.
IMPORTANT:
Even if dismissed with cause or fault on the part of the
employee, the employee is still entitled to:
1. Accrued pay starting from the last time he
received his paycheck until the day of termination.
2. 13th month pay.
CONSEQUENCE WHEN THERE IS JUST CAUSE but
THE EMPLOYER DID NOT FOLLOW THE NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS:
1. The employee is not entitled reinstatement
2. No separation benefits
3. The dismissal is valid; no illegal termination
4. The employer is liable for a fine.
TERMINATION
Termination is the cessation of an employment due to an
authorized cause, which is not the fault of the employee.
As a rule, termination carries with it separation pay.
Termination does not always carry with it separation pay (e.g.
closure of business due to financial reversal)
Termination on an authorized cause means that there is an
existing ground which the law itself allows or authorizes to
be invoked to justify the termination of an employee even
if he has not committed any wrongful act or omission.
Authorized causes:
1. Installation of labor-saving devices
2. Redundancy
3. Retrenchment
4. Resignation
5. Closure or cessation of business operations BY
REASON of financial reverses or business losses
6. Closure or cessation of business operations
NOT BY reason of financial reverses
Health-related Causes:
1. Disease
COMMON GROUNDS FOR ALL OF THE FIVE
GROUNDS AND INDISPENSIBLE
14
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
1. There is good faith in effecting the termination;
2. It must be the last resort
3. Two separate notices:
a. To those affected employees; and
b. To the DOLE at least one month prior to the
intended the termination;
• The one month period is for the determination
whether the termination for authorized caused is
appropriate
c. After the one month period from the notice
filed, there must be payment of separation
benefits, if owing
4. Separation Pay
When is separation pay paid:
a) Installation of Labor-Saving Device or
b) Redundancy
c) Based on Retrenchment to Prevent Losses or
d) Closure was NOT due to serious losses
When NO separation pay is needed to be paid:
a) When Closure was DUE to serious losses (wala na
kay mapuga sa employer)
5. Fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining what
are positions affected by the termination
IMPORTANT:
1. If there is a CBA that provides for a higher
separation pay, then the CBA shall prevail.
2. The proof of whether there is business losses or
financial reverses is applicable to retrenchment to
know whether to be valid and legal.
EFFECTS IN CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYER DOES
NOT FOLLOW THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT AND
THERE IS VALID TERMINATION WITH AUTHORIZED
CASE
• The termination is valid; no illegal dismissal
• The employer will pay fine of 50,000 or up.
INSTANCES THAT REMOVES THE LABOR ARBITER
OF TERMINATION DISPUTES
1. Voluntary Arbitration
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
2. Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over a
Labor Dispute
INSTALLATION OF LABOR-SAVING DEVICES
1. It must be that the reason for labor-saving devices
is to save cost, enhance efficiency, and other
justifiable reasons
2. Redundancy may result from installation of labor-
saving device
3. Proof of losses is not required.
REDUNDANCY
1. Services are in excess of what is demanded by the
enterprise
2. Position is superfluous because of a number of
factors
3. When there is a duplication of work and two or
more person doing the work of one person
4. May be resorted as a cost-cutting measure but
DOES not need to be always triggered by a
decline in the business.
IMPORTANT:
1. The wisdom of redundancy is not subject to
review by labor authorities and courts.
2. Evidence of losses is not required.
3. Act of the employer hiring new employees IS
NOT BAD FAITH if the positions have no
similar job descriptions
4. LIFO have no basis in law.
If there is a redundancy or even a retrenchment, the
employees cannot demand a LIFO (Last In, First Out
Scheme) because the employer also has to weigh the
performance, nature or skill of the employee.
5. LIFO is not a mandatory basis for redundancy.
6. The wisdom of redundancy and who to retain is
on the part of the employer.
7. Redundancy can be a result of over hiring in the
first place.
RETRENCHMENT
1. There should be proof of actual losses or
possible imminent losses
15
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd

Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN

• Otherwise, the retrenchment will lead to illegal • FR. GUS: You cannot squeeze blood out of a
dismissal turnip.

2. There is loss which is either imminent or actual. IMPORTANT:

3. There will only be a cutting-down of employees to 1. The fact that there was a closure for 6 months
save costs. does not justify losses (always resort to audited
financial statements).
RETRENCHMENT
1. Only statutory ground which requires proof of Manila Polo Club Employee’s Union vs. Manila Polo
actual losses Club
2. When there is retrenchment, there is no closing 1. Closure may either be partial or total.
down of operations, there is just a cutting-down 2. Closure or cessation of operations of
of employees as needed to prevent more losses. establishment or undertaking may or may not
3. There is no need that the employer must have be due to serious business losses
suffer the losses before he can retrench.
4. Cost-reduction must have been resorted to by the Regardless: There must be showing that it was
employer before immediately terminating his done in good faith and a written notice on (1)
employees. the affected employees and (2) DOLE is
served at least one month before the intended
Retrenchment to Retrenchment by reason of date of termination of employment.
PREVENT LOSSES ACTUAL LOSSES
There is need to pay No more need to pay any 3. The employer can lawfully close shop even if
separation pay of 1 month separation pay. not due to his serious business losses or
pay or at least ½ month financial reverses but needs to separation pay,
pay for every year of which is equivalent to at least one month or
service, a fraction of 6 one half month per year of service as
months is considered a provided for Art. 297 (283) of the Labor
year Code.
4. If the grounds is by reason of financial losses,
IMPORTANT: the employer must prove such allegation to
1. If there has been a cutting-off of employees and avoid the payment of separation pay.
most of the employees that have been cut-off are
union members = there is arbitrary exercise of RETRENCHMENT CLOSURE OF BUSINESS
retrenchment; there is illegal dismissal. DUE TO FINANCIAL
LOSSES
Down-sizing, but the There is already a closing
CLOSURE OR CESSATION OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS business or enterprise will down of the business
continue to operate establishment
1. When NOT due to serious business losses or There is a need to reduce There is a need to
financial reverses the personnel due to poor terminate employee to
• Separation pay is required: 1 month pay or at financial returns or labor- prevent further financial
least ½ month pay for every year of service, a saving devices drain who cannot pay
fraction of 6 months is considered a year. anymore his employees.

2. When DUE TO SERIOUS business or financial DISEASE

reverses
• Separation pay is NOT required. Requirements:
1. An employee who has been found suffering from
any disease;

Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde 16

2 Manresa 2020-2021
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
2. His continued employment is:
a. Prohibited by law or
b. Prejudicial to his health OR health of his
co-employees; and
c. A competent public health authority issues a
certificate that the disease of such nature or
at the state that it cannot be cured within a
period of 6 months even with proper medical
treatment
PRINCIPLES:
1. There can be applicability of this ground if the
employee suffered from several strokes which
would be prejudicial to his continued employment.
2. An employee suffering from HIV/AIDS cannot be
terminated on the basis of this law per se.
3. The absence of a medical certificate is
INDISPENSIBLE, the absence of a medical
certificate from a competent public health
authority is required by law to prove the existence
of the disease itself.
4. There is separation benefits because it is not a
fault on the part of the employer.
5. Disease is considered an authorized cause because
it is not due to the fault of the employee. So he is
entitled to separation pay (although the 6 months
for rest and medication have no pay).
Twin-notice requirement:
1. He must be notified that the dismissal is being
sought;
2. The notice informing the employee of his
dismissal, to be issued after the employee has
been given a reasonable opportunity to answer
and be head on his defense.
3. FUJI RULE: The right of the employee to present
countervailing medical certificates that he is fit to
work.
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL AND ITS EFFECTS
Illegal dismissal is where the employee was dismissed with
just cause or an act imputable against him OR where the
termination has no basis in cases, but was later on proven
that he was innocent.
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
Immediate reinstatement is a consequence of illegal
dismissal.
It shall be immediately executory and mandatory for the
employer to reinstate the employer to comply. No need for
motion of execution.
Pioneer Texturizing vs. NLRC
If a judgement was ordered or awarded a reinstatement from
the LA it is self-executory, meaning it does not require a writ
of execution. The employer has the duty of submitting a
compliance report within 10 days from the decision that he
has reinstated the employee.
If the employer fails to reinstate the employee, then it is from
then that the LA will issue a writ.
AGAIN: As a rule, there is no need for a writ of execution
or motion to be reinstated. Only after there is non-
compliance by the employer, will there be an issuance of a
writ.
PRINCIPLES:
1. Illegal dismissal is not a violation of due process
because due process clause under the Constitution
is only applicable in cases where it is against the
government and NOT the employer.
WHAT IF THE DECISION, REINSTATING THE
EMPLOYEE IS APPEALED?
GARCIA, ET. AL VS. PAL IN THE CASE OF UIC VS.
ATTY. CARLOS, PH. D
The situation:
Jenna was illegally dismissed by his employer Z company.
Jenna instituted an action against Z company. It has been
adjudged by the Labor Arbiter that Jenna was illegally
dismissed and Z company must reinstate Jenna.
Z company appealed the decision of reinstatement. The
NLRC later on reversed the order of the LA and ruled that
Jenna was not illegally dismissed and that her dismissal was
just.
Rule:
From the time that the LA has decided to reinstate, the
employer is under the obligation:
a. to reinstate the employee and
17
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd
Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN
b. pay the wages
This shall be done from the time span of the decision until
the reversal by the NLRC.
This is called payroll reinstatement.
If the NLRC decides that it reverses the decision of the LA,
the employee is NOT obliged to return the wages paid to
him pending appeal.
BASICALLY:
1. LA – illegal dismissal + reinstate
NLRC – reverses
The period of appeal from LA to NLRC, the EE is entitled
to reinstatement immediately and payment of wages.
2. LA – illegal dismissal + reinstate
NLRC – affirms
The period of appeal from LA to NLRC, the EE is entitled
to reinstatement immediately and payment of wages. Upon
decision of the NLRC, no obligation on the part of the EE
to return what he has received.
3. LA - illegal dismissal + reinstate
NLRC – affirms
CA
The period of reinstatement is interrupted upon
affirmation to the NLRC going up to the CA.
TAKE NOTE:
The same rule applies where the ER-EE will submit their
case before the voluntary arbitrator.
1. VA – illegal dismissal
CA – reversal or affirmation
There will still be an immediate reinstatement or payment
of wages in either situation regardless if the appeal will
reverse or affirm.
TAKE NOTE:
1. The GARCIA, ET. AL VS. PAL (decided En Banc
by Carpio Morales) ruling ABANDONED the
Genuino doctrine.
Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde
2 Manresa 2020-2021
Genuino Doctrine
1. If there is reversal of the order of reinstatement,
the employer has the right to require the employee
to refund the salaries.
2. Abolished by the Court because it disregards the
social justice principles.
3. It makes the salaries given to the employee pending
appeal as a bond posted in installment by the
employer.
TAKE NOTE:
1. There can be a demand for attorney’s fees if by
reason of the dismissal, the employee has to resort
to judicial processes and was later on found out to
have been illegally dismissed.
2. There can be an award for moral damages as well:
a. When the employee was dismissed in a
humiliating and degrading manner (even if
the dismissal was proper)
b. Found to have been illegally dismissed
(regardless if stated in the position paper)
IMMEDIATE REINSTATEMENT IN RETURN TO WORK
CASES UNDER Art. 263 (g)
When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable
to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and
Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and
decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory
arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the
effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending
strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification
order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption
or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall
immediately return-to-work and the employer shall
immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under
the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the
Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement
agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as
with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
University of Immaculate Concepcion vs. Sec.
When the SOLE has already assumed jurisdiction and has
issued a return-to-work and the employer will resume
operations, the SOLE can order the employer to reinstate
employees terminated by the employer even if those
terminated employees are not part of the bargaining unit.
PLDT vs. Manggagawa
18
LABOR STANDARDS 3 EXAM rd

Chan Robles Labor Review 2019 Edition, Termination Law Notes, 2019 and 2020 TSN

Once the SOLE would already acquire jurisdiction and order

a return to work order, the reinstatement by virtue of which
will also affect those who have been terminated employees as
not part of the bargaining unit and their termination is
covered by a decision of the voluntary arbitrator, even if they
have already received their termination benefits.

WHEN IS THERE NO TERMINATION OF

EMPLOYMENT

1. Where there is BONA FIDE SUSPENSION of the

business for a period not exceeding six months; or

2. When the employee is under civic or military duty

• The employee is entitled to his salaries during
training period

Compiled and Arranged by Trina Marie Oralde 19

2 Manresa 2020-2021