2020.

21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

450+ Case doctrines

from February 2013
To June 2019

JOFREY Q. BOTOR, JR.

/ Labor Law / 1
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS /

Dyannah Alexa Marie Ramacho

Project Jurisprudence - Philippines

/ Labor Law / 2
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

CASE DOCTRINES

RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF MRS. PACITA A. GRUBA, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF
THE LATE MANUEL K. GRUBA, FORMER CTA ASSOCIATE JUDGE.
A.M. No. 14155-Ret. / November 19, 2013

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.”

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC. vs. JOY C. CABILES

G.R. No. 170139 / August 5, 2014

Overseas workers regardless of their classifications are entitled to security of tenure,

at least for the period agreed upon in their contracts. This means that they cannot
be dismissed before the end of their contract terms without due process. If they were
illegally dismissed, the workers’ right to security of tenure is violated.

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.

GEORGE A. ARRIOLA vs. PILIPINO STAR NGAYON, INC.

G.R. No. 175689 / August 13, 2014

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 / 3
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

NANCY S. MONTINOLA vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES

G.R. No. 198656 / September 8, 2014

Illegally suspended employees, similar to illegally dismissed employees, are entitled

to moral damages when their suspension was attended by bad faith or fraud,
oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public
policy.

AM-PHIL FOOD CONCEPTS, INC. vs. PAOLO JESUS T. PADILLA

G.R. No. 188753 / October 1, 2014

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.”

JOEL B. MONANA vs. MEC GLOBAL SHIPMANAGEMENT AND MANNING

CORPORATION
G.R. No. 196122 / November 12, 2014

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 / 4
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK, INC. vs. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU

G.R. No. 204944-45 / December 3, 2014

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.

PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (PHILEC) vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 168612 / December 10, 2014

An appeal to reverse or modify a Voluntary Arbitrator's award or decision must be

filed before the Court of Appeals within 10 calendar days from receipt of the award
or decision.

SAUDIA vs. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO

G.R. No. 198587 / January 14, 2015

All Filipinos are entitled to the protection of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

The termination of respondents' employment happened when they were pregnant

and expecting to incur costs on account of child delivery and infant rearing. As noted
by the Court of Appeals, pregnancy is a time when they need employment to sustain
their families. Indeed, it goes against normal and reasonable human behavior to
abandon one's livelihood in a time of great financial need.

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.

CLUB FILIPINO, INC. and ATTY. ROBERTO F. DE LEON vs. BENJAMIN

BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 168406 / January 14, 2015

[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 / 5
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

of coercion or vitiation of consent, we believe we can safely conclude that the

petitioners x x x fully knew that they entered into when they accepted their
retirement benefits and when they executed their quitclaims. The Club (as well as
the NLRC) is therefore correct in their position that these petitioners no longer have
any interest that can serve as basis for their participation in the present petition.

In the exercise of our discretion, however, we stop short of ordering the

reinstatement of these petitioners’ [sic] in light of their obviously strained relationship
with the Club resulting from the strike x x x.

FLOR G. DAYO vs. STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION

G.R. No. 210660 / January 21, 2015

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.

G.J.T. REBUILDERS MACHINE SHOP vs. RICARDO AMBOS

G.R. No. 174184 / January 28, 2015

To prove serious business losses, employers must present in evidence financial

statements showing the net losses suffered by the business within a sufficient period
of time. Generally, it cannot be based on a single financial statement showing
losses. Absent this proof, employers closing their businesses must pay the dismissed
employees separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or to at least one-half-month
pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.

EMER MILAN, RANDY MASANGKAY vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION
G.R. No. 202961 / February 4, 2015

An employer is allowed to withhold terminal pay and benefits pending the

employee’s return of its properties.

/ Labor Law / 6
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY, INC. vs. CELSO E. FUENTES

G.R. No. 169303 / February 11, 2015

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.

ZENAIDA PAZ vs. NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO., INC.

G.R. No. 199554 / February 18, 2015

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.

FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. LILIA S. CHUA

G.R. No. 187491 / July 08, 2015

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 / 7
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

and procedural due process were satisfied in terminating respondent's employment now
stand undisturbed.

CELSO F. PASCUAL, SR. vs. CANIOGAN CREDIT AND DEVELOPMENT

COOPERATIVE
G.R. No. 172980 / July 22, 2015

An appeal of the outright dismissal of a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory

order of a lower court becomes moot and academic where, during its pendency,
judgment on the merits has been rendered in the main case and has become final
and executory. An intra-cooperative dispute between two officers on one hand and
the Board of Directors on the other falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts,
not of the Labor Arbiter.

RICHARD N. RIVERA vs. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC.

G.R. No. 215568 / August 03, 2015

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.

ALEJANDRO CEPRADO, JR. vs. NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED

SERVICES, INC.
G.R. No. 175198 / September 23, 2015

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.

JOVITA S. MANALO vs. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY

G.R. No. 185058 /November 09, 2015

At the core of the issue of constructive dismissal is the matter of whether an

employer's action is warranted. Not every inconvenience, disruption, difficulty, or
disadvantage that an employee must endure sustains a finding of constructive
dismissal. When professionals and educators violate the ethical standards of the
profession to which they belong and for which they train students, educational
institutions employing them are justified in relieving them of their teaching posts and
in taking other appropriate precautionary or punitive measures.

/ Labor Law / 8
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

MARICEL S. NONAY vs. BAHIA SHIPPING SERVICES, INC.

G.R. No. 206758 / February 17, 2016

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.

VICTOR S. LIMLINGAN vs. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, INC.

G.R. No. 220481 / February 17, 2016
G.R. No. 220503

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.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. ISAGANI DAWAL

G.R. No. 173921 / February 24, 2016
G.R. No. 173952

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.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION
G.R. No. 174747 / March 09, 2016

Under Proclamation No. 50, Series of 1986, no employer-employee relationship is

created by the acquisition of Asset Privatization Trust (now Privatization and
Management Office) of government assets for privatization. It is not obliged to pay
for any money claims arising from employer-employee relations except when it
voluntarily holds itself liable to pay. These money claims, however, must be filed
within the three-year period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Once liability is
determined, a separate money claim must be brought before the Commission on

/ Labor Law / 9
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

Audit, unless the funds to be used have already been previously appropriated and
disbursed.

THE PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC. EMPLOYEES UNION vs. UNOCAL

PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 190187 / September 28, 2016

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.

SONEDCO WORKERS FREE LABOR UNION (SWOFLU) vs. UNIVERSAL ROBINA

CORPORATION
G.R. No. 220383 / October 05, 2016

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.

CRISTINA BARSOLO vs. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

G.R. No. 187950 / January 11, 2017

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 / 10
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LUISITO G. CORTEZ

G.R. No. 187257 / February 07, 2017
G.R. No. 187776

The implementation of Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation and Position

Classification Act of 1989) resulted in the integration of all allowances previously
received, including Cost of Living Allowance and Amelioration Allowance, into the
basic standardized salary. When a government entity ceases to be covered by
Republic Act No. 6758, the new position classification and compensation plan must
also include all allowances previously received in the basic salary, in line with the
principle of non-diminution of pay.

RE: MEDICAL CONDITION OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIA CRISTINA J.

CORNEJO, SANDIGANBAYAN
A.M. No. 16-10-05-SB / March 14, 2017

Disability retirement is conditioned on the incapacity of the employee to continue his

or her employment for involuntary causes such as illness or accident. The social
justice principle behind retirement benefits also applies to those who are forced to
cease from service for disabilities beyond their control.

LOURDES C. RODRIGUEZ vs. PARK N RIDE INC.

G.R. No. 222980 / March 20, 2017

Natural expressions of an employer do not automatically make for a hostile work

atmosphere. The totality of circumstances in this case negates petitioner Lourdes C.
Rodriguez's claim of constructive dismissal.

MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS vs. PHILIPPINE LONG

DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY INCORPORATED
G.R. No. 190389 / April 19, 2017
G.R. No. 190390

An employer's declaration of redundancy becomes a valid and authorized cause for

dismissal when the employer proves by substantial evidence that the services of an
employee are more than what is reasonably demanded by the requirements of the
business enterprise.

/ Labor Law / 11
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

YOLANDO T. BRAVO vs. URIOS COLLEGE

G.R. No. 198066 / June 07, 2017

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.

MARIO C. MADRIDEJOS vs. NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC.

G.R. No. 204262 / June 07, 2017

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.

PEDRO C. PEREA vs. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. No. 206178 / August 09, 2017

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.

ANTONIO B. MANANSALA vs. MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILS., INC.

G.R. No. 208314 / August 23, 2017

As laypersons, seafarers cannot be expected to make completely accurate accounts

of their state of health. Unaware of the nuances of medical conditions, they may, in
good faith, make statements that tum out to be false. These honest mistakes do not
negate compensability for disability arising from pre-existing illnesses shown to be
aggravated by their working conditions. However, when a seafarer's proper
knowledge of pre-existing conditions and intent to deceive an employer are
established, compensability is negated.

/ Labor Law / 12
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION vs. CYNTHIA DE JESUS

G.R. No. 203943 / August 30, 2017

A conditional settlement of a judgment award may be treated as a compromise

agreement and a judgment on the merits of the case if it turns out to be highly
prejudicial to one of the parties.

ANGELITO L. CRISTOBAL vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.

G.R. No. 201622 / October 04, 2017

Where a tribunal renders a decision substantially reversing itself on a matter, a

motion for reconsideration seeking reconsideration of this reversal, for the first time,
is not a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.

SHARPE SEA PERSONNEL, INC. vs. MACARIO MABUNAY, JR.

G.R. No. 206113 / November 6, 2017

The company-designated physicians' failure to arrive at a final and definite

assessment of a seafarer's fitness to work or level of disability within the prescribed
periods means that the seafarer shall be deemed to be totally and permanently
disabled.

DEMEX RATTANCRAFT, INC. vs. ROSALIO A. LERON

G.R. No. 204288 / November 08, 2017

To justify the dismissal of an employee based on abandonment of work, there must

be a showing of overt acts clearly evidencing the employee's intention to sever the
employer employee relationship.

MACARIO S. PADILLA vs. AIRBORNE SECURITY SERVICE, INC.

G.R. No. 210080 / November 22, 2017

Placing security guards on floating status is a valid exercise of management

prerogative. However, any such placement on off-detail should not exceed six (6)
months. Otherwise, constructive dismissal shall be deemed to have occurred.
Security guards dismissed in this manner are ordinarily entitled to reinstatement. It
is not for tribunals resolving these kinds of dismissal cases to take the initiative to
rule out reinstatement. Otherwise, the discriminatory conduct of their employers in
excluding them from employment shall unwittingly find official approval.

Age, per se, cannot be a valid ground for denying employment to a security guard.

/ Labor Law / 13
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

VIVIAN B. TORREON vs. GENEROSO APARRA

G.R. No. 188493 / December 13, 2017

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.

UNITED DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER vs. CESARIO BERNADAS

G.R. No. 209468 / December 13, 2017

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.

CHARLIE HUBILLA vs. HSY MARKETING LTD., CO.

G.R. No. 207354 / January 10, 2018

When the evidence in labor cases is in equipoise, doubt is resolved in favor of the
employee.

PERFECTO M. PASCUA vs. BANK WISE, INC.

G.R. No. 191460 / January 31, 2018
G.R. No. 191464 / January 31, 2018

There is constructive dismissal when an employee is compelled by the employer to

resign or is placed in a situation where there would be no other choice but to resign.
An unconditional and categorical letter of resignation cannot be considered indicative
of constructive dismissal if it is submitted by an employee fully aware of its effects
and implications.

PHILIPPINE SPAN ASIA CARRIERS CORPORATION (FORMERLY SULPICIO

LINES, INC.) vs. HEIDI PELAYO
G.R. No. 212003 / February 28, 2018

"Not every inconvenience, disruption, difficulty, or disadvantage that an employee

must endure sustains a finding of constructive dismissal." It is an employer's right to
investigate acts of wrongdoing by employees. Employees involved in such
investigations cannot ipso facto claim that employers are out to get them. Their
involvement in investigations will naturally entail some inconvenience, stress, and
difficulty. However, even if they might be burdened - and, in some cases, rather
heavily so - it does not necessarily mean that an employer has embarked on their
constructive dismissal.
/ Labor Law / 14
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE OF MANILA, SR. vs. VIRGINIA PASCUA, M.D.

G.R. No. 214744 / March 14, 2018

When termination of employment is occasioned by retrenchment to prevent losses,

an employer must declare a reasonable cause or criterion for retrenching an
employee. Retrenchment that disregards an employee's record and length of service
is an illegal termination of employment.

ARIEL A. EBUENGA vs. SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES, INC.

G.R. No. 208396 / March 14, 2018

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.

RENANTE B. REMOTICADO vs. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION TRADING CORP.

G.R. No. 206529 / April 23, 2018

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.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE

(DARMPC) vs. CARMENCITA DIAZ
G.R. No. 206331 / June 04, 2018

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.

/ Labor Law / 15
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

NICANOR F. MALCABA vs. PROHEALTH PHARMA PHILIPPINES, INC.

G.R. No. 209085 / June 06, 2018

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."

ORIENT HOPE AGENCIES, INC. vs. MICHAEL E. JARA

G.R. No. 204307 / June 06, 2018

Failure of the company-designated physician to render a final and definitive

assessment of a seafarer's condition within the 240-day extended period transforms
the seafarer's temporary and total disability to permanent and total disability.

MARIO A. ABUDA vs. L. NATIVIDAD POULTRY FARMS

G.R. No. 200712 / July 04, 2018

The necessity or desirability of the work performed by an employee can be inferred

from the length of time that an employee has been performing this work. If an
employee has been employed for at least one (1) year, he or she is considered a
regular employee by operation of law.

THE PROVINCIAL BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES

(PBOAP) vs. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE)
G.R. No. 202275 / July 17, 2018

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.

/ Labor Law / 16
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

MAGSAYSAY MOL MARINE, INC. vs. MICHAEL PADERES ATRAJE

G.R. No. 229192 / July 23, 2018

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.

RAUL S. IMPERIAL vs. HEIRS OF NEIL BAYABAN

G.R. No. 197626 / October 03, 2018

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
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.

GSIS FAMILY BANK EMPLOYEES UNION vs. SEC. CESAR L. VILLANUEVA

G.R. No. 210773 / January 23, 2019

Officers and employees of government-owned or controlled corporations without

original charters are covered by the Labor Code, not the Civil Service Law. However,
non-chartered government-owned or controlled corporations are limited by law in
negotiating economic terms with their employees. This is because the law has
provided the Compensation and Position Classification System, which applies to all
government-owned or controlled corporations, chartered or non-chartered.

OSCAR M. PARINGIT vs. GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES, INC.

G.R. No. 217123 / February 06, 2019

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
/ Labor Law / 17
 2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

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.

MANUEL G. ACOSTA vs. MATIERE SAS

G.R. No. 232870 / June 03, 2019

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.

JULITA M. ALDOVINO vs. GOLD AND GREEN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT AND

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.
G.R. No. 200811 / June 19, 2019

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 (Migrant Workers and
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.

/ Labor Law / 18
2020.21 JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN CASE DOCTRINES

Case Digests for Bar Exams

/ Labor Law / 19