LABOR
Limited Concept: physical or mental, or both
exertion necessary to produce goods.
Broader Concept: totality of people who
constitute the workforce with whatever skills,
trade, technical training and productive know-
how they possess.
MANPOWER – portion of nation’s population
which has actual or potential capability to
contribute to the production of goods and
services.
LABOR LAW
Includes all rules governing the conditions
under which persons may work under the
control of the other persons called the
employers.
Classification of Labor Law
A. Protective Legislation;
B. Welfare or Social Legislation;
C. Diplomatic Legislation;
D. Administrative Legislation;
E. Labor Relations Legislation; and
F. Labor Standards Legislation
Justification of Labor Law
1. Police Power;
2. Social Justice Clause;
3. Doctrine of Incorporation Clause
(Article II);
4. Protection to Labor Clause (Article II);
5. Full Employment Clause (Article XIII);
6. Freedom from Poverty Clause (Section
9, Article II)
7. Freedom of Association Clause; and
8. Due Process and Equal Protection of the
Law Clause
History of PH Labor Law
Spanish Regime
- Traces of labor laws can be found.
However, it was a master – servant.
American Regime
- Brought significant labor laws like anti
slaver, child labor law and more.
Pres. Manuel Quezon
- Father of Labor
- Court of Industrial Relations was
created.
- Maternity leave was created.
Philippine Republic
- SSS Law
- Agricultural Tenancy Law
- Land Reform Code
Martial Law
- Declaration of the entire PH as land
reform area
May 1, 1974 (PD 442)
- LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
- Effective on November 4, 1974 due to
amendments
PURPOSE OF LABOR LEGISLATION
To protect the workers from the mighty and
correct the injustice. In line with the Police
Power of the State.
SOURCES OF LABOR LAWS
Primary
- Constitution;
- Legislation passed by Congress;
- Decision of the SC;
- IRR of the DOLE;
- Decisions of Quasi-Judicial Bodies; and
- ILO Conventions
Secondary
- Opinion of the SOLE and Justices
- Reports, debates made and conducted by
Congress;
- Labor Law Reviews;
 - Labor Law and Social Leg Textbooks;
and
- Foreign Laws and Decision
Constitutional and Statutory Bases of Labor
Laws
ARTICLE II
Section 2 (Doctrine of Incorporation Clause)
Section 9 (Freedom from Poverty Clause)
Section 10 (Social Justice Clause)
Section 11 (Value of Dignity and Human
Rights)
- Anti-Discrimination Law
Section 18 ()
Section 20 (Private Sector)
CASES
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS
EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION vs.
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO.,
INC.
Facts: 
Philippine Blooming Employees Organization
(PBMEO) decided to stage a mass
demonstration in front of Malacañang to express
their grievances against the alleged abuses of the
Pasig Police.
After learning about the planned mass
demonstration, Philippine Blooming Mills Inc.,
called for a meeting with the leaders of the
PBMEO. During the meeting, the planned
demonstration was confirmed by the union. But
it was stressed out that the demonstration was
not a strike against the company but was in fact
an exercise of the laborers' inalienable
constitutional right to freedom of expression,
freedom of speech and freedom for petition for
redress of grievances.  are essential to the preservation and vitality of
The company asked them to cancel the
demonstration for it would interrupt the normal
course of their business which may result in the
loss of revenue. This was backed up with the
threat of the possibility that the workers would
lose their jobs if they pushed through with the
rally. 
A second meeting took place where the
company reiterated their appeal that while the
workers may be allowed to participate, those
from the 1st and regular shifts should not absent
themselves to participate, otherwise, they would
be dismissed. Since it was too late to cancel the
plan, the rally took place and the officers of the
PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a
violation of the ‘No Strike and No Lockout’
clause of their Collective Bargaining
Agreement. 
The lower court decided in favor of the company
and the officers of the PBMEO were found
guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their motion
for reconsideration was subsequently denied by
the Court of Industrial Relations for being filed
two days late.
Issue:
Whether or not the workers who joined the
strike violated the CBA?
Held: 
No. While the Bill of Rights also protects
property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized. Because these
freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as
supremely precious in our society" and the
"threat of sanctions may deter their
exercise almost as potently as the
actual application of sanctions," they "need
breathing space to survive,"
permitting government regulation only "with
narrow specificity." Property and property rights
can be lost thru prescription; but human rights
are imprescriptible. In the hierarchy of civil
liberties, the rights to freedom of expression and
of assembly occupy a preferred position as they
our civil and political institutions; and such
priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the
sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."
The freedoms of speech and of the press as well
as of peaceful assembly and of petition for
redress of grievances are absolute when directed
against public officials or "when exercised in
relation to our right to choose the men and
women by whom we shall be governed.”
Q: What are the different constitutional rights
afforded to workers?
A: The Constitutional Rights of Workers are:
a. Right to Property and Due Process (Sec.
1, Art. III);
b. Right to a living wage;
c. Right to Humane Conditions of Work;
d. Right to Self-Organization;
e. Right to engage in Peaceful Concerted
Activities;
f. Right to Collective Bargaining;
g. Right to Present Grievances to the
employer;
h. Right to Participate in Policy and
Decision-Making Process;
i. Right to Security of Tenure; and
j. Right to Just Share in the fruits of
production.
Q: Is labor a property right within the
protective mantle of the Bill of Rights?
A: Yes, labor is a property protected by the Bill
of Rights because it can not be taken away
without due process.
BDO UNIBANK, INC. (formerly
EQUITABLE PCI BANK), Petitioner vs.
NESTOR N. NERBES AND ARMENIA F.
SURA VILLA
Facts:
Respondents Nestor Nerbes and Armenia
Suravilla were employees of petitioner BDO
Unibank, Inc. (previously EPCI Bank) and
members of Equitable PCI Employees Union
(EPCIBEU). For having won and proclaimed in
the election of officers of EPCIBEU as President
and Executive Vice President, Nerbes and
Suravilla notified the bank of their decision to
exercise their privilege under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which allows
them to be n full-time leave during their term of
office. Subsequently, the losing candidates
appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR) the resolution of the DOLE proclaiming
respondents as winners. Because of this appeal,
the bank disapproved respondents’ union leaves.
However, respondents failed to return to work
despite orders for them to do so. After
conducting administrative hearings, the bank
dismissed respondents on ground of serious
misconduct and willful disobedience. Hence,
they filed before the Labor Arbiter (LA) a
complaint for unfair labor practice (ULP), illegal
dismissal and money claims. The LA ruled in
favor of respondents and ordered the bank to
allow them to go on paid union leaves. On
appeal by the bank to the NLRC, the NLRC
reversed the ruling of the LA. On certiorari
petition before the CA, the ruling of the LA was
reinstated.
Q: Will security of tenure always prevail over
management prerogative/rights?
A: No, the law and jurisprudence consistently
echo the commitment to protect the working
class in keeping with the principle of social
justice. Nevertheless, the law, in aiming to
protect the rights of workers, does not thereby
authorize the oppression or self-destruction of
the employer.
Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express, Inc. (GR
No. 207838, January 25, 2017)
Facts:
Petitioner Maula was hired by respondent as
Operation Staff. His duties include, but are not
limited to, documentation, checker, dispatcher or
airfreight coordinator.
Petitioner’s employment was uneventful until
came February 18, 2009 when the respondent’s
HRD required him and some other employees to
sign a form sub-titled “Personal Data for New
Hires.” When he inquired about it he was told it
was nothing but merely for the twenty-peso
increase which the company owner allegedly
wanted to see. He could not help but entertain
doubts on the scheme as they were hurriedly
made to sign the same. It also appeared from the
form that the designated salary/wage was daily
instead of on a monthly basis.
On February 25, 2009, petitioner, together with
some other concerned employees, requested for
a meeting with their manager together with the
manager of the HRD. They questioned the
document and aired their side voicing their
apprehensions against the designation “For New
Hires” since they were long time regular
employees earning monthly salary/wages and
not daily wage earners. The respondent
company’s manager, Amador Cabrera, retorted:
“Ay wala yan walang kwenta yan.”
On March 25, 2009, in the evening, a supposed
problem cropped up. A misroute of cargo was
reported and the company cast the whole blame
on the petitioner. It was alleged that he
erroneously wrote the label on the box – the
name and destination, and allegedly was the one
who checked the cargo. The imputation is quite
absurd because it was the client who actually
wrote the name and destination, whereas, it was
not the petitioner but his co-employee who
checked the cargo. The following day, he
received a memorandum charging him with
“negligence in performing duties.”
On April 2, 2009 at 4:00 p.m., he received
another memorandum of “reassignment”
wherein he was directed to report effective April
2, 2009 to Omalza and Marzan in another
department of the company. But then, at around
4:30 p.m. of the same day, he was instructed by
the HR manager to proceed to his former office
for him to train his replacement. He went inside
the warehouse and at around 6:00 p.m. he began
teaching his replacement. At 8:00 p.m., his
replacement went outside. He waited for some
time and came to know later when he verified
outside that the person already went straight
home.
When he went back inside, his supervisor
insisted to him to continue with his former work,
but due to the “reassignment paper” he had some
reservations. Sensing he might again be framed
up and maliciously accused of such as what
happened on March 25, 2009, he thus refused.
Around 10:30 p.m., he went home.
The following day, an attempt to serve another
memorandum was made on him. This time he
was made to explain by the HR Manager why he
did not perform his former work and not report
to his reassignment. It only validated his
apprehension of a set-up. For how could he be at
two places at the same time (his former work is
situated in Sucat, Parañaque, whereas, his new
assignment is in FTI, Taguig City). It bears
emphasizing that the directive for him to
continue discharging his former duties was
merely verbal. At this point, petitioner lost his
composure. Exasperated, he refused to receive
the memorandum and thus retorted “Seguro na-
abnormal na ang utak mo” as it dawned on
him that they were out looking for every means
possible to pin him down.
Nonetheless, he reported to his reassignment in
FTI Taguig on April 3, 2009. There he was
served with the memorandum suspending him
from work for 30 days effective April 4, 2009
for alleged “Serious misconduct and willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in
connection with his work.”
On May 4, 2009, he reported to the office only
to be refused entry. Instead, a dismissal letter
was handed to him.
Petitioner Maula filed a complaint against
respondent Ximex and its officers for illegal
dismissal and other money claims. LA and
NLRC found that petitioner was illegally
dismissed. CA reversed the same.
 Q: Who has the burden of proof in dismissal
cases?
A: The burden of proof rests upon the employer
to show that the disciplinary action was made
for lawful cause or that the termination of
employment was valid.
Q: What is the quantum of proof required in
dismissal cases?
A: In administrative and quasi-judicial
proceedings, the quantum of evidence required
is substantial evidence or "such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion."
Q: What are the two (2) facets of dismissal?
A: Dismissal from employment have two facets:
first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which
constitutes substantive due process; and, second,
the legality of the manner of dismissal, which
constitutes procedural due process.