(1) FULL PROTECTION OF LABOR

Art. XIII, Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use
of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to
foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in
the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.

Jurisprudence:
Marcopper Mining Corporation vs NLRC and NAMAWU-MIF
G.R. No. 103525, March 29. 1996

(2) DOUBT IS RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF LABOR

Labor Code, Article 4. Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
Civil Code, Article 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of
the safety and decent living for the laborer.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN LABOR LAW 1

Jurisprudence:
Dominador Malabunga,* Jr., vs. Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation
G.R. No. 198515, June 15, 2015

FACTS:
Respondent Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation is a duly registered domestic corporation engaged in manufacture of
steel products. It hired petitioner Dominador Malabunga Jr. as one of its machinists.
On July 9, 2004, an inventory was conducted at the company warehouse and it was found that one aluminum level
was issued to respondent’s Fabrication Unit and another was issued to petitioner.
On July 11, 2004, petitioner returned an aluminum level to the warehouse.
Thereafter, on July 24, 2004, petitioner was charged with theft of an aluminum level. Respondent based its allegations
on the statements of its warehousemen alleging that petitioner returned an untarnished aluminum level that was
allegedly issued to the Fabrication Unit, that the discovery of the theft was made on July 22, 2004 when another
machinist borrowed the aluminum level and found that it was the lost level issued to the Fabrication Unit, that it was
allegedly the lost aluminum level of the Fabrication Unit since it has a dent on one side, and that petitioner must have
stolen the same from the Fabrication Unit in order to cover up for the theft of the aluminum level issued to petitioner.
Petitioner, for his part, insists that the accusation against him was false, baseless, and unfair, that the aluminum level
he borrowed was the same one he returned on July 11, 2004, that when he returned the same, the warehousemen did
not find anything unusual on the level and that he cannot be faulted for the ineptness or inefficiency of respondent in
keeping track of its equipment.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN LABOR LAW ALONZO, FM (JD 4E)

On December 2, 2004, respondent suspended petitioner for a period of 30 days and required him to return the value of
the lost aluminum level or P280.00 through salary deductions. Thus, petitioner was suspended from January 10, 2005
to February 13, 2005. Thereafter, he returned to work.
On March 2, 2005, petitioner filed a Complaint for Illegal Suspension with the NLRC arguing that he should not be
blamed for the loss of the aluminum level and that blame should be pointed at respondent’s warehousemen for their
failure to maintain a system that would clearly indicate the identity of borrowed tools and items. Petitioner also prays
that his suspension be declared illegal and that respondent be made to pay his supposed salary from January 10 to
February 13, 2005.
In its Decision, the Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint giving credence to the statements made by
respondent’s warehousemen.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the LA and ruled that the statements of the warehousemen do not prove
that it was petitioner who took the aluminum level. Their statements only prove that an aluminum level was lost and
that the theft was discovered only when another machinist sought to borrow an aluminum level. Moreover, it is absurd
for a thief to return the thing stolen as it would be entirely illogical and contrary to ordinary human experience.
Respondent sought a reversal of the NLRC’s decision in the CA. For its part, the CA affirmed the findings of the
Labor Arbiter and ruled that based on the statements of the warehousemen, petitioner did steal the aluminum level.
Furthermore, the CA held that petitioner’s defense of alibi and denial could not be given credence in the face of
positive identification of the other witnesses.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred when it did not affirm the decision of the NLRC?

RULING:
The SC granted the petition. The Cathay Pacific Steel’s warehouseman, Narvasa positively declared that what
Malabunga
GENERAL returned, and whatINheLABOR
PRINCIPLES and co-warehouseman
LAW Dennis Zapanta actually received from Malabunga, was an 2
untarnished (malinis) and unique aluminum level. In other words, it did not contain any engraving nor bear any dent,
damage or scratch. This directly contradicted the claims of the Fabrication Unit workers.
An examination of the statement of another warehouseman, Baetiong, revealed that he had no personal knowledge at
all that what Malabunga returned was the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level; he claimed to have learned of this fact
only from Tercero, who came to borrow an aluminum level on July 13, 2004. Upon being given one, Tercero
apparently noticed that it was the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level, and he told the warehousemen of this fact. Based
on Tercero’s unilateral claim, the warehousemen concluded that what Malabunga returned was indeed the Fabrication
Unit’s aluminum level. If it is true that the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level was supposedly lost sometime in June
2004 which loss was never reported, and subsequently discovered by Tercero to be in the warehouse all along when he
went there to borrow one on July 13, 2004, then it could not be the case that said aluminum level – which contained an
engraving of the word “Fabrication” and had a dent – was the one Malabunga returned on July 11, 2004.
The declaration of warehouseman Narvasa was categorical; he and his colleague Dennis Zapanta received from
Malabunga an untarnished aluminum level which had no dent or damage whatsoever. This can only mean that
Malabunga returned the aluminum level that was originally issued to him as stated in the warehouse records, and not
the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level, since it did not contain an engraving, and had no dent.
With the foregoing finding, the only logical conclusion that may be arrived at is that Malabunga did not commit theft
of the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument that what Malabunga
returned was indeed the Fabrication Unit’s aluminum level, still there could be no valid basis to charge him with theft.
As Cathay Pacific Steel and its witnesses themselves admitted, there was no official report of loss of the Fabrication
Unit’s aluminum level; the workers at said unit concealed the loss, and declared it so and admitted it only when
Tercero supposedly discovered that what he had borrowed on July 13, 2004 was the very same aluminum level which
was purportedly missing since June 2004.
In other words, the aluminum level was declared lost at the same time it was found, in which case – using common
sense and logic – there could be no loss at all. As far as Cathay Pacific Steel is concerned, the Fabrication Unit’s
GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN LABOR LAW ALONZO, FM (JD 4E)
aluminum level was never lost. More to the point, the SC did not give weight to the statements of the Fabrication Unit
workers Mangahas, Tercero, and Nagales; their failure to report the loss of their unit’s aluminum level makes their
statements not only highly doubtful and self-serving, but unnecessary and uncalled for – an afterthought not worth
considering.
Faced with the limitations in Cathay Pacific Steel’s system, the SC held that it could not sustain the view that
Malabunga is guilty of theft of company property. It could simply be that due to the ineffective system within the
warehouse and its inefficient personnel, there was a mix-up of records; worse, it could be that tools and items within
the warehouse were misplaced or lost due to its irresponsible personnel. If any, Cathay Pacific Steel is alone
responsible; it cannot conveniently put the blame on its employees in order to make up for or cover its losses caused
by its own disorganized system and inept personnel.
There are serious doubts in the evidence on record as to the factual basis of the charges against Malabunga.
These doubts shall be resolved in his favor in line with the policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to
labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence
presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.

Dee Jay’s Inn and Café and/or Melinda Ferraris vs Ma. Lorina Rañeses
G.R. No. 191825, October 05, 2016

(3) PROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF LABOR LAW

When labor law is retroactive:
Oro Enterprise, Inc., vs NLRC and L. L. Cecilio
G.R. No. 110861

GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN LABOR LAW 3

GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN LABOR LAW ALONZO, FM (JD 4E)