Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2 Labor Law Case Doctrines Justice Marvic Leonen
2 Labor Law Case Doctrines Justice Marvic Leonen
/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS /
/ Labor Law / 1
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS /
/ Labor Law / 2
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
/ READ ME FIRST! /
The author is not in any way connected or related to the Supreme Court or
/ Labor Law / 3
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
CASE DOCTRINES
In one case, the Court held that “Considering, however, that all the parties here acted
in good faith, we cannot countenance the refund of x x x benefits x x x, which
amounts the petitioners have already received. Indeed, no indicia of bad faith can be
detected under the attendant facts and circumstances. The officials and chiefs of
offices concerned disbursed such incentive benefits in the honest belief that the
amounts given were due to the recipients and the latter accepted the same with
gratitude, confident that they richly deserve such benefits.”
The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 ensures that overseas
workers have recourse in law despite the circumstances of their employment. By
providing that the liability of the foreign employer may be “enforced to the full
extent” against the local agent, the overseas worker is assured of immediate and
sufficient payment of what is due them.
The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years from the
time the cause of action accrued. This four-year prescriptive period, not the three-
year period for filing money claims under Article 291 of the Labor Code, applies to
claims for backwages and damages due to illegal dismissal.
/ Labor Law / 4
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
In one case, the Court held that “Considering that the ground for retrenchment
availed of by petitioners was not sufficiently and convincingly established, the
retrenchment is hereby declared illegal and of no effect. The quitclaims executed by
retrenched employees in favor of petitioners were therefore not voluntarily entered
into by them. Their consent was similarly vitiated by mistake or fraud. The law looks
with disfavor upon quitclaims and releases by employees pressured into signing by
unscrupulous employers minded to evade legal responsibilities. As a rule, deeds of
release or quitclaim cannot bar employees from demanding benefits to which they
are legally entitled or from contesting the legality of their dismissal. The acceptance
of those benefits would not amount to estoppel. The amounts already received by
the retrenched employees as consideration for signing the quitclaims should,
however, be deducted from their respective monetary awards.”
Seafarers who suffer from occupational hazards are not necessarily constrained to
contractual breach as cause of action in claiming compensation. Our laws allow
seafarers, in a proper case, to seek damages based on tortious violations by their
employers by invoking Civil Code provisions, and even special laws such as
environmental regulations requiring employers to ensure the reduction of risks to
occupational hazards.
STANLEY FINE FURNITURE, ELENAAND CARLOS WANG vs. VICTOR T.
GALLANO
G.R. No.190486 / November 26, 2014
To terminate the employment of workers simply because they asserted their legal
rights by filing a complaint is illegal. It violates their right to security of tenure and
should not be tolerated.
/ Labor Law / 5
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
It is the burden of the employer to prove that a person whose services it pays for is
an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without a fixed
term. That a person has a disease does not per se entitle the employer to terminate
his or her services. Termination is the last resort. At the very least, a competent
public health authority must certify that the disease cannot be cured within six (6)
months, even with appropriate treatment.
All Filipinos are entitled to the protection of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
It is clear that respondents intended to remain employed with Saudia. All they did
was avail of their maternity leaves. Evidently, the very nature of a maternity leave
means that a pregnant employee will not report for work only temporarily and that
she will resume the performance of her duties as soon as the leave allowance expires.
[W]orkers’ releases and quitclaims are frowned upon and cannot simply be accepted
at face value. Jurisprudence however provides us guidance on when to accept and
when to reject workers’ releases and quitclaims. In the present case where the
recipients are responsible union officers who have regularly acted in behalf of their
members in the discharge of their union duties and where there is no direct evidence
/ Labor Law / 6
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
The Court earlier pronounced that “Settled is the rule that for illness to be
compensable, it is not necessary that the nature of the employment be the sole and
only reason for the illness suffered by the seafarer. It is sufficient that there is a
reasonable linkage between the disease suffered by the employee and his work to
lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the
establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he
might have had.”
It is true that labor contracts are construed in favor of the employee. However, the
facts of this case and the applicable laws show that the grant of death benefits cannot
be justified.
/ Labor Law / 7
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
Constitutional due process protects the individual from the government and assures
him of his rights in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings; while statutory due
process found in the Labor Code and Implementing Rules protects employees from
being unjustly terminated without just cause after notice and hearing.
An employer may provide for retirement benefits in an agreement with its employees
such as in a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Otherwise, Article 287 of the Labor
Code, as amended, governs.
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.
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.
Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and
encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question
the jurisdiction or power of the court. In one case, it is not right for a party who has
affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an
affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.
Respondent cannot now profit from her own inaction. She actively participated in the
proceedings and vigorously argued her case before the National Labor Relations
Commission without the slightest indication that she found anything objectionable to the
conduct of those proceedings. It is thus but appropriate to consider her as acceding to
and bound by how the National Labor Relations Commission was to resolve and,
ultimately did resolve, petitioner's appeal. Its findings that the requisites of substantive
/ Labor Law / 8
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
and procedural due process were satisfied in terminating respondent's employment now
stand undisturbed.
We find no need to award these damages (Moral and Exemplary) in favor of petitioner.
While the termination of his employment was invalid, we nevertheless do not find
respondent Genesis to have acted with such a degree of malice as to act out of a design
to oppress petitioner. It remains that a discrepancy and shortage chargeable to petitioner
was uncovered, although this discrepancy and shortage does not justify a penalty as
grave as termination of employment.
Motions for reconsideration not served on the adverse party do not toll the running
of the reglementary period for filing an appeal. Upon lapse of the reglementary
period, the judgment sought to be reconsidered becomes immutable.
/ Labor Law / 9
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
In some cases, illnesses that are contracted by seafarers and are not listed as
occupational diseases under the 2000 Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration-Standard Employment Contract may be disputably presumed to be
work-related or work-aggravated. The relation of the disease contracted to the work
done by the seafarer, or that the work aggravated the disease, must be sufficiently
proven by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the claim for disability benefits cannot be
granted.
The award of attorney's fee is warranted pursuant to Article 111 of the Labor Code.
Ten (10%) percent of the total award is usually the reasonable amount of attorney's
fees awarded. It is settled that where an employee was forced to litigate and, thus,
incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney's fees is
legally and morally justifiable.
The employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal of its employees is with a
valid and authorized cause. The employer's failure to discharge this burden makes
the dismissal illegal.
/ Labor Law / 10
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
Audit, unless the funds to be used have already been previously appropriated and
disbursed.
The merger of a corporation with another does not operate to dismiss the employees
of the corporation absorbed by the surviving corporation. This is in keeping with the
nature and effects of a merger as provided under law and the constitutional policy
protecting the rights of labor. The employment of the absorbed employees subsists.
Necessarily, these absorbed employees are not entitled to separation pay on account
of such merger in the absence of any other ground for its award.
An employer who refuses to bargain with the union and tries to restrict its bargaining
power is guilty of unfair labor practice. In determining whether an employer has not
bargained in good faith, the totality of all the acts of the employer at the time of
negotiations must be taken into account.
Since there was no showing that her husband showed any sign or symptom of cardiac
injury during the performance of his functions, petitioner clearly failed to show that
her husband's employment caused the disease or that his working conditions
aggravated his existing heart ailment. Moreover, as the Court of Appeals correctly
pointed out, Manuel died on September 24, 2006, four years after he disembarked
from MV Polaris Star. Other factors have already played a role in aggravating his
illness. Due to the considerable lapse of time, more convincing evidence must be
presented in order to attribute the cause of death to Manuel's work. In the absence
of such evidence and under the circumstances of this case, this Court cannot assume
that the illness that caused Manuel's death was acquired during his employment with
Vela.
/ Labor Law / 11
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
/ Labor Law / 12
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
The employer must adduce proof of actual involvement in the alleged misconduct for
loss of trust and confidence to warrant the dismissal of fiduciary rank-and-file
employees. However, "mere existence of a basis for believing that [the] employee
has breached the trust [and confidence] of [the] employer" is sufficient for
managerial employees.
Dismissal is deemed too harsh a penalty to be imposed on employees who are not
induced by any perverse or wrongful motive despite having committed some form of
misconduct.
Illnesses not listed as an occupational disease under Section 32 of the 2000 Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration Amended Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing the Employment of Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean-Going Vessels are
disputably presumed to be work-related. However, seafarers must prove through
substantial evidence the correlation between their illness and the nature of their work
for their claim for disability benefits to prosper.
For a disability claim to prosper, a seaman only needs to show that his work and
contracted illness have a reasonable linkage that must lead a rational mind to
conclude that the seaman's occupation may have contributed or aggravated the
disease.
/ Labor Law / 13
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
The physician who has personal knowledge of a seafarer's actual medical condition
after closely monitoring and regularly treating that seafarer is more credible than
another physician who only saw such seafarer once.
/ Labor Law / 14
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
Age, per se, cannot be a valid ground for denying employment to a security guard.
Lack of documentary evidence is not fatal to a claim for the deceased's lost earning
capacity. Testimony from a competent witness familiar with his salary is a sufficient
basis to determine the deceased's income before his death.
An employee who has already qualified for optional retirement but dies before the
option to retire could be exercised is entitled to his or her optional retirement benefits,
which may be claimed by the qualified employee's beneficiaries on his or her behalf.
When the evidence in labor cases is in equipoise, doubt is resolved in favor of the
employee.
/ Labor Law / 15
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
This Court is duty-bound to respect the consistent prior findings of the Labor Arbiter,
of the National Labor Relations Commission, and of the Court of Appeals. It must be
cautious not to substitute its own appreciation of the facts to those of the tribunals
which have previously weighed the parties' claims and personally perused the
evidence. It will not discard consistent prior findings and award disability benefits to
a seafarer who fails to adduce even an iota of evidence, let alone substantial
evidence, and fails to draw a causal connection between his or her alleged ailment
and working conditions.
/ Labor Law / 16
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
There can be no case for illegal termination of employment when there was no
termination by the employer. While, in illegal termination cases, the burden is upon
the employer to show just cause for termination of employment, such a burden arises
only if the complaining employee has shown, by substantial evidence, the fact of
termination by the employer.
A liberal construction of the rules of procedure, including the period within which a
petition for review must be filed, requires justifiable reasons or at least a reasonable
attempt at compliance with them.
For disobedience to be considered as just cause for termination, two (2) requisites
must concur: first, "the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful or
intentional," and second, "the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful,
made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he [or she] had
been engaged to discharge." For disobedience to be willful, it must be "characterized
by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee's act inconsistent
with proper subordination."
The conduct complained of must also constitute "harmful behavior against the
business interest or person of his [or her] employer." Thus, it is implied in every case
of willful disobedience that "the erring employee obtains undue advantage
detrimental to the business interest of the employer."
/ Labor Law / 17
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
Government created policy based on the finding that the boundary payment scheme
that has since determined the take-home pay of bus drivers and conductors has been
proven inadequate in providing our public utility bus drivers and conductors a decent
and living wage. It decided that this was the best approach to ensure that they get
the economic and social welfare benefits that they deserve. This Court will not stand
in its way. Policy questions are not what this Court decides.
The third doctor rule does not apply when there is no final and definitive assessment
by the company-designated physicians.
The rigorous process for disability claims prescribed in the POEA SEC seeks a balance
between a seafarer's right to receive a just compensation for his or her injuries and
an employer's interest to determine the veracity of disability claims against it. In line
with this policy, the third doctor rule was added to enable the parties to expeditiously
settle disability claims in case of conflict between the findings of the company-
designated physicians and the seafarer's doctor. It was not to be construed to mean
that "it is only the company-designated physician who could assess the condition and
declare the disability of seamen." Certainly, it cannot be used by employers to limit
or defeat the legitimate claims of seafarers.
The burden of proving that a negligent act of an employee was performed within the
scope of his or her assigned tasks rests with the plaintiff. When the plaintiff has
discharged this burden, as in this case, the presumption that the employer was
negligent arises, and the employer must put forward evidence showing that he or she
/ Labor Law / 18
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
had exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of the employee. Failing to dispute this presumption renders the
employer solidarily liable with the employee for the quasi-delict.
There is very little that seafarers can do to better their working conditions upon
boarding a ship. It is the shipowners and their representatives who have better
resources to ensure that their crew members are properly nourished, kept adequately
fit, and are placed in a situation where they are not put at any risk greater than what
is inherent in their jobs. After all, a crew properly nourished, adequately fit, and
enjoying humane working conditions will redound to the benefit of the shipowners.
No ship sails without a human crew. Consequently, the crew's quality of skills and
state of health significantly determine the efficiency of the shipping business. Taking
responsibility for the health of all human souls on their ships also defines the
shipowners' sense of humanity and justice.
In redundancy, an employer must show that it applied fair and reasonable criteria in
determining what positions have to be declared redundant. Otherwise, it will be held
liable for illegally dismissing the employee affected by the redundancy.
The clause "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever
is less" as reinstated in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 (AN ACT AMENDING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND
/ Labor Law / 19
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995) is unconstitutional, and has no force and effect
of law. It violates due process as it deprives overseas workers of their monetary
claims without any discernable valid purpose.
Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora recognized that the Civil Code and the Labor Code allow
the execution of fixed-term employment contracts. However, in cases where periods
are imposed to prevent an employee from acquiring security of tenure, such contracts
must be disregarded for being contrary to public policy and
morals. Brent's application is limited to cases where the employer and the employee
are more or less on an equal footing when they enter into the contract.
the seafarer's work is the sole contributor or factor in the aggravation of the illness.
The test is only reasonable proof of work-connection, and not direct causation.
The Court of Appeals correctly held that part-time employees with fixed-term
employment are among the employees entitled to retirement benefits under Republic
Act No. 7641.
Republic Act No. 7641 specifically states that "any employee may be retired upon
reaching the retirement age[,]" and that in case of retirement, in the absence of a
retirement agreement, an employee who reaches the retirement age "who has served
at least five (5) years ... may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay[.]" No
exception is made for part-time employees.
the concealment of his medical condition. Clearly, petitioner knew that he had a
recurring shoulder dislocation. He never denied this fact. Hence, his disability claim
must be denied.
At the core of sexual harassment in the workplace, as penalized by Republic Act No.
7877, otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, is abuse of power
by a superior over a subordinate. Sexual harassment engenders three-fold liability:
criminal, to address the wrong committed against society itself; civil, to address the
private wrong against the offended party; and administrative, to protect the public
service. Courts and administrative bodies should not hesitate to penalize insidious
acts of sexual harassment, especially when committed by high-ranking public
officers.
We must change the notion that injuries refer to only the physical kind. Injuries can
come in many forms-physical, emotional, or psychological. It is high-time that we
recognize sexual harassment on board vessels as a risk faced by our seafarers. We
also cannot disregard the possibility that Toliongco felt shame over what had
happened. Victims of sexual abuse usually take time before reporting to the proper
authorities. Perhaps, more so if they are male as society has made it hard for male
victims of sexual harassment to come out and report. At its core, sexual harassment
is not an issue of gender but an issue of power and it may take time to find solutions.
/ Labor Law / 22
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
Only casual employees performing work that is neither necessary nor desirable to the
usual business and trade of the employer are required to render at least one (1) year
of service to attain regular status. Employees who perform functions which are
necessary and desirable to the usual business and trade of the employer attain
regular status from the time of engagement.
All the requisites for a valid retrenchment must be present in order for a dismissal to
be lawful. The employer must not only show that it incurred substantial and serious
business losses, but must also prove that the retrenchment was done in good faith
and the retrenched employees were selected through fair and reasonable criteria.
/ Labor Law / 23
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES
/ Labor Law / 24