1. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v.

Ilo-ilo Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union, December 5, 2018

In Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Ilo-ilo Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union, although the scales
of social justice usually tilts in favor of the employee, it does not mean that the Court is blinded
for the law does not authorize the oppression or self-destruction of the employer. The
management also have rights and is entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of
simple fair play.

2. Paredes v. Feed the Children Phils., GR No. 184917, Sept. 9, 2015

In Paredes v. Feed the Children Phils, the court held that t he act of the employer moving the
effectivity of the resignation is not an act of harassment. The 30-day notice requirement for an
employee’s resignation is actually for the benefit of the employer who has the discretion to
waive such period. Its purpose is to afford the employer enough time to hire another employee
if needed and to see to it that there is proper turn-over of the tasks which the resigning
employee may be handling. It is settled that the law serves to equalize the unequal. The labor
force is a special class that is constitutionally protected because of the inequality between
capital and labor. This constitutional protection presupposes that the labor force is weak.
However, the level of protection to labor should vary from case to case; otherwise, the state
might appear to be too paternalistic in affording protection to labor.

3. Phil. Education Company, Inc. v. Union of the Philippine Education Employees, Inc., G.R. No. L-
13778, 29 April 1960;

In Phil Educatio Co. v. Uion of the Philippine Education Employees, the court held that the
protection to the employee does not authorize unfairness to the employer. It would be highly
unfair to require an employer to continue employing or reinstate an employee whom he lost
trust and confidence.

4. Sterling Paper Products Ent. Inc. v. KMM-Katipunan, GR No. 221493, August 2, 2017

In Sterling Paper v. KMM-Katipunan, the court held that serious misconduct by the employee
justifies the employer in terminating his or her employment. The utterance of obscene, insulting or
offensive words against a superior is not only destructive of the morale of his co-employees and a
violation of the company rules and regulations, but also constitutes gross misconduct.

5. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, GR No. 55159, Dec 22, 1989

In PAL v. NLRC, it is held that the NLRC has no authority to order continued payment of salaries
 in a case of a valid dismissal, until the case is finally resolved. The NLRC's order would result in
compensating the employee for services no longer rendered and when he is no longer employed
by the employer. This is contrary to the age-old rule of "a fair day's wage for a fair day's labor"
which continues to govern the relation between labor and capital and remains a basic factor in
determining employees' wages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no
wage or pay unless the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was prevented by
management or was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed. 

6. Soriano v Offshore Shipping and Manning Corp., et. al.., G.R. No. 78409, 14 Sept. 1989;

In Soriano v Offshore Shipping and Manning Corp it is held that the purpose of Article 34,
paragraph 1 of the Labor Code is for the protection of both parties (employer and employee). An
alteration in the employment contract is not a violation of Art 34. There is a violation when such
prohibition violate the purpose of such prohibition. If the alteration does not violate the
protection intended, the alteration will not violate such law. In conclusion, literal
interpretation/application to laws protecting labor shall not be availed of if it will lead to
absurdity.

7. PAMBUSCO Employees Union v. CIR, 68 Phil 591

In PAMBUSCO Employees Union v. CIR, it shows that the mandate of protection in favor of labor
will not apply if lack of protection is caused by labor itself. In order for the workers to be entitled
to benefits by the law, fulfillment of the mandate of the law is necessary.