G.R. No. 192514. April 18, 2012.

D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. and/or DAVID M. CONSUNJI, petitioners,

vs.
ESTELITO L. JAMIN, respondent.

Facts

Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) requested the House of Representatives to remove

Congressman Camasura from House of Representative Electoral Tribunal(HRET) on the ground of
Disloyalty to LDP, the Party where he belongs, for voting in favor of Petitioner Bondoc, who belongs to
the Nacionalista Party, regarding the election protest. The ouster of Camasura would change the
outcome of the election protest in favor of Pineda.

Issue

(1) Whether the house of representatives can interfere with the disposition of an election
contest in the House Electoral Tribunal through the ruse of "reorganizing" the
representation in the tribunal of the majority party
(2) Whether disloyalty to a party can be a ground of removal from HRET

Ruling

(1) No.

The independence of the House Electoral Tribunal so zealously guarded by the framers of
our Constitution, would, however, by a myth and its proceedings a farce if the House of
Representatives, or the majority party therein, may shuffle and manipulate the political (as
distinguished from the judicial) component of the electoral tribunal, to serve the interests of the party
in power.

The resolution of the House of Representatives removing Congressman Camasura from the
House Electoral Tribunal for disloyalty to the LDP, because he cast his vote in favor of the
Nacionalista Party's candidate, Bondoc, is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the
House Electoral Tribunal to be the sole judge of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc.

To sanction such interference by the House of Representatives in the work of the House
Electoral Tribunal would reduce the tribunal to a mere tool for the aggrandizement of the party in
power (LDP) which the three justices of the Supreme Court and the lone NP member would be
powerless to stop. A minority party candidate may as well abandon all hope at the threshold of the
tribunal.

(2) No.

As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must discharge their
functions with complete detachment, impartiality, and independence even independence from the
political party to which they belong. Hence, "disloyalty to party" and "breach of party discipline," are
not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal.

In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a conscience vote" in
favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and
the recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of
discretion, an injustice, and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of expulsion against
Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and void.

Doctrines

1. Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to
intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks
are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee
must be deemed a regular employee.

2. Length of time is not the controlling test for project employment, nevertheless, it is vital in
determining if the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.

3. Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the
completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they are employed, regardless of the number of
projects in which they have been employed by a particular construction company. Moreover, the
company is not required to obtain a clearance from the Secretary of Labor in connection with such
termination. What is required of the company is a report to the nearest Public Employment Office for
statistical purposes.
G.R. No. 195227. April 21, 2014.

FROILAN M. BERGONIO, JR., DEAN G. PELAEZ, CRISANTO O. GEONGO, WARLITO O. JANAYA,

SALVADOR VILLAR, JR., RONALDO CAFIRMA, RANDY LUCAR, ALBERTO ALBUERA, DENNIS NOPUENTE
and ALLAN SALVACION, petitioners,
vs.
SOUTH EAST ASIAN AIRLINES and IRENE DORNIER, respondents.

Facts

Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) requested the House of Representatives to remove

Congressman Camasura from House of Representative Electoral Tribunal(HRET) on the ground of
Disloyalty to LDP, the Party where he belongs, for voting in favor of Petitioner Bondoc, who belongs to
the Nacionalista Party, regarding the election protest. The ouster of Camasura would change the
outcome of the election protest in favor of Pineda.

Issue

(3) Whether the house of representatives can interfere with the disposition of an election
contest in the House Electoral Tribunal through the ruse of "reorganizing" the
representation in the tribunal of the majority party
(4) Whether disloyalty to a party can be a ground of removal from HRET

Ruling

(3) No.

The independence of the House Electoral Tribunal so zealously guarded by the framers of
our Constitution, would, however, by a myth and its proceedings a farce if the House of
Representatives, or the majority party therein, may shuffle and manipulate the political (as
distinguished from the judicial) component of the electoral tribunal, to serve the interests of the party
in power.

The resolution of the House of Representatives removing Congressman Camasura from the
House Electoral Tribunal for disloyalty to the LDP, because he cast his vote in favor of the
Nacionalista Party's candidate, Bondoc, is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the
House Electoral Tribunal to be the sole judge of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc.

To sanction such interference by the House of Representatives in the work of the House
Electoral Tribunal would reduce the tribunal to a mere tool for the aggrandizement of the party in
power (LDP) which the three justices of the Supreme Court and the lone NP member would be
powerless to stop. A minority party candidate may as well abandon all hope at the threshold of the
tribunal.
 (4) No.

As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must discharge their
functions with complete detachment, impartiality, and independence even independence from the
political party to which they belong. Hence, "disloyalty to party" and "breach of party discipline," are
not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal.

In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a conscience vote" in
favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and
the recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of
discretion, an injustice, and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of expulsion against
Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and void.

Doctrines

1. In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee,
insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal. The
employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to
his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The
posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein.

2. Under Article 223 (now Article 229) of the Labor Code, the LA’s order for the reinstatement of
an employee found illegally dismissed is immediately executory even during pendency of the employer’s
appeal from the decision. Under this provision, the employer must reinstate the employee — either by
physically admitting him under the conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal, and paying his wages; or,
at the employer’s option, merely reinstating the employee in the payroll until the decision is reversed by
the higher court. Failure of the employer to comply with the reinstatement order, by exercising the
options in the alternative, renders him liable to pay the employee’s salaries.

3. An order of reinstatement issued by the Labor Arbiter (LA) is self-executory, i.e., the dismissed
employee need not even apply for and the LA need not even issue a writ of execution to trigger the
employer’s duty to reinstate the dismissed employee.

4. The employer is duty-bound to reinstate the employee, failing which, the employer is liable
instead to pay the dismissed employee’s salary.

5. An employer is obliged to immediately reinstate the employee upon the LA’s finding of illegal
dismissal; if the employer fails, it is liable to pay the salary of the dismissed employee. Of course, it is not
always the case that the LA’s finding of illegal dismissal is, on appeal by the employer, upheld by the
appellate court. After the LA’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employer’s duty to reinstate
the dismissed employee is effectively terminated. This means that an employer is no longer obliged to
keep the employee in the actual service or in the payroll. The employee, in turn, is not required to
return the wages that he had received prior to the reversal of the LA’s decision.
 6. The reversal by a higher tribunal of the Labor Arbiter’s (LA’s) finding (of illegal dismissal),
notwithstanding, an employer, who, despite the LA’s order of reinstatement, did not reinstate the
employee during the pendency of the appeal up to the reversal by a higher tribunal may still be held
liable for the accrued wages of the employee, i.e., the unpaid salary accruing up to the time the higher
tribunal reverses the decision.

7. The Labor Code mandates the employer to immediately reinstate the dismissed employee,
either by actually reinstating him/her under the conditions prevailing prior to the dismissal or, at the
option of the employer, in the payroll. The employers’ failure to exercise either option rendered him
liable for the dismissed employees’ accrued salary until the LA decision is reversed by the CA.
G.R. No. 213486. April 26, 2017.

EDITHA M. CATOTOCAN, petitioner,

vs.
LOURDES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY, INC./LOURDES SCHOOL, INC. and REV. FR. CESAR F. ACUIN, OFM
CAP, RECTOR, respondents.

Facts

Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) requested the House of Representatives to remove

Congressman Camasura from House of Representative Electoral Tribunal(HRET) on the ground of
Disloyalty to LDP, the Party where he belongs, for voting in favor of Petitioner Bondoc, who belongs to
the Nacionalista Party, regarding the election protest. The ouster of Camasura would change the
outcome of the election protest in favor of Pineda.

Issue

(5) Whether the house of representatives can interfere with the disposition of an election
contest in the House Electoral Tribunal through the ruse of "reorganizing" the
representation in the tribunal of the majority party
(6) Whether disloyalty to a party can be a ground of removal from HRET

Ruling

(5) No.

The independence of the House Electoral Tribunal so zealously guarded by the framers of
our Constitution, would, however, by a myth and its proceedings a farce if the House of
Representatives, or the majority party therein, may shuffle and manipulate the political (as
distinguished from the judicial) component of the electoral tribunal, to serve the interests of the party
in power.

The resolution of the House of Representatives removing Congressman Camasura from the
House Electoral Tribunal for disloyalty to the LDP, because he cast his vote in favor of the
Nacionalista Party's candidate, Bondoc, is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the
House Electoral Tribunal to be the sole judge of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc.

To sanction such interference by the House of Representatives in the work of the House
Electoral Tribunal would reduce the tribunal to a mere tool for the aggrandizement of the party in
power (LDP) which the three justices of the Supreme Court and the lone NP member would be
powerless to stop. A minority party candidate may as well abandon all hope at the threshold of the
tribunal.

(6) No.
 As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must discharge their
functions with complete detachment, impartiality, and independence even independence from the
political party to which they belong. Hence, "disloyalty to party" and "breach of party discipline," are
not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal.

In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a conscience vote" in
favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and
the recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of
discretion, an injustice, and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of expulsion against
Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and void.

Doctrines

1. Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a voluntary agreement between the
employer and the employee whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age, agrees to sever his or her
employment with the former.—Retirement is the result of a bilateral act of the parties, a voluntary
agreement between the employer and the employee whereby the latter, after reaching a certain age,
agrees to sever his or her employment with the former.

2. In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of

employees in the establishment, 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 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.

3. Jurisprudence is replete with cases discussing the employer’s prerogative to lower the
compulsory retirement age subject to the consent of its employees.

4. Indeed, acceptance by the employees of an early retirement age option must be explicit,
voluntary, free, and uncompelled. While an employer may unilaterally retire an employee earlier than
the legally permissible ages under the Labor Code, this prerogative must be exercised pursuant to a
mutually instituted early retirement plan. In other words, only the implementation and execution of the
option may be unilateral, but not the adoption and institution of the retirement plan containing such
option.