Manuel G. Acosta vs. Matiere SAS and Philippe Gouvary (G.R. No.

232873 June 3, 2019)

FACTS: Matiere SAS executed a contract for the construction of flyovers

and bridges with the DPWH and another contract for the construction of
bridges with the DAR. Matiere SAS represented by Philippe Gouvary
executed a consulting agreement with Manuel Acosta wherein the former
engaged the latter as its technical consultant for 12 months with a monthly
salary of P70,000.00.
Upon the expiration of the consulting agreement’s expiration,
Matiere SAS hired Acosta as its technical assistant, as enforced through
an employment agreement with the same monthly salary. Matiere SAS
informed the DOLE, through a letter, that it was terminating the
employment of five of its employees, including Acosta. He sent Acosta a
letter with the subject “ending of the employment agreement,” informing
the latter that his employment was to end on July 31, 2013. According to
Matiere SAS, the decision to terminate Acosta’s employment was due to
the “cessation of delivery operations and the diminution of activities.”
Matiere SAS filed before the DOLE an Establishment Employment
Report citing redundancy and completion of deliver of supplies as the
reasons for the termination of the employment of five of its employees. It
also filed a List of Affected Workers by Displacements/Flexible Work
Arrangements, enumerating therein the names of the five dismissed
employees. The LA found Acosta’s dismissal illegal because Matiere SAS
and Gouvary failed to prove the factual bases for the reduction of its
workforce, thereby pointing out that Matiere SAS failed to submit a
Certificate of Completion regarding the project with DAR.

ISSUE: Whether or not Acosta was validly dismissed on the ground of

redundancy

RULING: No. Acosta was deemed to have been illegally terminated.

Acosta maintained that the supply contract satisfies only the delivery of the
supply of bridging material. He further contended that he was tasked with
checking the designs of the Design Consultants, coordinating with them,
and evaluating their billings, which were activities that were still ongoing
when he was terminated. In order to establish good faith, the company
must provide substantial proof that the services of the employees are in
excess of what is required of the company, and that fair and reasonable
criteria were used to determine the redundant position.
MARIO C. MADRIDEJOS vs. NYK-FIL SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC (G.R.
No. 204262 June 7, 2019)
FACTS: Madridejos was a Filipino seafarer hired by respondent NYK-Fil
Ship Management, Inc., a registered local manning agency operating by
virtue of Philippine laws for its foreign principal, International Cruise
Services, Limited. Madridejos signed an employment contract with NYK-FIL
as a Demi Chef for the vessel "Crystal Symphony/Serenity." Madridejos
signed an employment contract with NYK-FIL as a Demi Chef. Madridejos
commenced to work aboard the vessel. Two weeks after, he claimed that
he suddenly slipped on a metal stairway and fell down, hitting his abdomen
and chest on a metal pipe. He was brought to the ship doctor and was
diagnosed to have a sebaceous cyst to the right of the umbilicus. After two
months, NYK-FIL terminated Madridejos' services through its foreign
principal. Madridejos insisted that he did not finish his employment contract
with NYK-FIL due to his unwanted health condition. Not being at fault for
the pre-termination of his employment contract, he made demands upon
NYK-FIL to pay his disability benefits.

ISSUE: Whether or not Madridejos entitled to disability benefits

RULING: No. Madridejos cannot claim disability benefits since he was not
medically repatriated. Even assuming that Madridejos was medically
repatriated, he still cannot claim for disability benefits since his sebaceous
cyst was not work-related. 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 an 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 enough 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.
Madridejos cannot solely rely on the disputable presumption. For his failure
to substantiate his claim that his cyst was either work-related or work-
aggravated, this Court cannot grant him relief. For this reason, this Court
cannot presuppose that it is work-related.
UNITED DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER vs. CESARIO BERNADAS,
REPRESENTED BY LEONILA BERNADAS (G.R. No. 209468, December
13, 2017)

FACTS: Cesario is a rank and file employee of United Doctors Medical

Center, as a housekeeper but eventually promoted to be a utility man.
Under the optional retirement policy, an employee who has rendered at
least 20 years of service is entitled to optionally retire. The optional
retirement pay is equal to a retiree's salary for 11 days per year of service.

Cesario died from a "freak accident" while working in a doctor's

residence. He was 53 years old. Leonila representing her deceased
husband, Cesario, filed a Complaint for payment of retirement benefits,
damages, and attorney's fees with the National Labor Relations
Commission. Leonila and her son also claimed and were able to receive
insurance proceeds of P180,000.00 under the CBA.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Leonila's Complaint, ruling that Cesario
should have applied for optional retirement benefits during his lifetime, the
benefits being optional. Since he did not apply for it, his beneficiaries were
not entitled to claim his optional retirement benefits.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the L.A.’s Decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Leonila Bernadas as her husband's representative,

may claim his optional retirement benefits in consonance with whether or
not Cesario Bernadas is entitled to receive his optional retirement benefits
despite his untimely death
RULING: Yes. Petitioner's optional retirement plan is premised on length
of service, not upon reaching a certain age. It rewards loyalty and
continued service by granting an employee an earlier age to claim his or
her retirement benefits even if the employee has not reached his or her
twilight years. It would be the height of inequity to withhold respondent
Cesario's retirement benefits despite being qualified to receive it, simply
because he died before he could apply for it. In any case, the CBA does
not mandate that an application must first be filed by the employee before
the right to the optional retirement benefits may vest. Thus, this ambiguity
should be resolved in favor of the retiree.
RENANTE B. REMOTICADO vs. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION TRADING 
CORP. AND ROMMEL M. ALIGNAY (G.R. No. 206529, April 23, 2018)
FACTS: Remoticado's services were engaged by Typical Construction as
a helper/laborer in its construction projects, the most recent being identified
as the Jedic Project at First Industrial Park in Batangas. Nielo, Typical
Construction's Field Human Resources Officer, and 2 of Remoticado's co-
workers, Salmero Pedros and Jovito Credo, recalled that on December 6,
2010, Remoticado was absent without an official leave.
He remained absent until December 20, 2010 when, upon showing up,
he informed Nielo that he was resigning. Nielo advised Remoticado to
return the following day as he still had to report Remoticado's resignation to
Typical Construction's main office, and as his final pay had yet to be
computed Remoticado returned the following day and was handed
P5,082.53 as his final pay. He protested, saying that he was entitled to
"separation pay computed at 2 months for his services for 2 years." 
In response, Nielo explained that Remoticado could not be entitled to
separation pay considering that he voluntarily resigned. Nielo added that if
Remoticado was not satisfied with P5,082.53, he was free to continue
working for Typical Construction. He claimed that he was told to stop
reporting for work due to a "debt at the canteen" and thereafter was
prevented from entering Typical Construction's premises The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the complaint NLRC denied the appeal CA uphold the NLRC
decision
ISSUE: Whether or not the waiver/quitclaim was voluntarily made by
Remoticado
RULING: Yes. The waiver and quitclaim bearing petitioner's signature and
thumb marks was dated December 21, 2010, predating petitioner's alleged
illegal termination by two days. If indeed petitioner was told to stop
reporting for work, it does not make sense for Typical Construction to have
petitioner execute a waiver and quitclaim two full days ahead of the
termination of his employment. It would have been a ludicrous move for an
employer that is purportedly out to outwit someone into unemployment. The
waiver and quitclaim could very well have been antedated. It was for
petitioner to allege and prove any possibility of antedating. He did not do
so.
Antedating would just have been an inexplicably asinine move on the
part of respondents. What is most crucial is that petitioner has never
disavowed the waiver and quitclaim.
MACARIO S. PADILLA vs. AIRBORNE SECURITY SERVICE, INC. 
AND/OR CATALINA SOLIS (G.R. No. 210080 November 22, 2017)

FACTS: On September 1, 1986, Padilla was hired by respondent Airborne

Security Service, Inc. as a security guard. Padilla allegedly rendered
continuous service until June 15, 2009, when he was relieved from his
post  and was advised to wait for his re-assignment order.

He allegedly received a letter from Airborne directing him to report for

assignment and deployment. He called Airborne's office but was told that
he had no assignment yet and received another letter from Airborne asking
him to report to its office. He personally reported to the office to inquire on
the status of his deployment. He was told that Airborne was having a hard
time finding an assignment for him since he was already over 38 years old.
Padilla added that he was advised by Airborne's personnel to resign, but he
refused. In December 2009, when he reported to the office to collect his
13th month pay, he was again persuaded to hand in his resignation letter.

Still not having been deployed or re-assigned, Padilla filed his

Complaint for illegal dismissal, impleading Airborne and its president,
respondent Catalina Solis. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Padilla’s
Complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was constructively dismissed from his

employment

RULING: No. The court ruled that it is unreasonable to deny employees

their means of earning a living exclusively on the basis of age when there is
no other indication that they are incapable of performing their functions. It is
true that certain tasks require able-bodied individuals. Age, per se, is not a
reliable indication of physical stamina1 or mental rigor. What is crucial in
determining capacity for continuing employment is an assessment of an
employee's state of health, not his or her biological age. Outside of
limitations founded on scientific and established wisdom such as the age of
minority, proscriptions against child labor, or a standard retirement age, it is
unjust to discriminate against workers who are within an age range that is
typical of physical productivity.
DEMEX RATTANCRAFT, INC. AND NARCISO T. DELA MERCED vs. 
ROSALIO A. LERON (G.R. No. 204288, November 08, 2017)

FACTS: Leron was hired as a weaver by Demex Rattancraft, Inc. , a

domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing handcrafted rattan
products for local sale and export.

Leron was paid on a piece-rate basis and his services were contracted
through job orders. He worked from Monday to Saturday. However, there
were times when he was required to work on Sundays. Leron received
his wages at the end of every week but he never received standard
benefits such as 13th month pay, service incentive leave, rest day pay,
holiday pay, and overtime pay.

Leron was dismissed by Demex's foreman. Leron did not report for work.
The next day, he filed a complaint against Demex for illegal dismissal.

Demex construed Leron's failure to report to work as an absence without

leave. Demex sent Leron notices requiring him to return to work. Despite
having received these two notices, Leron did not resume his post. Leron
received a third notice from Demex informing him of its decision to
terminate his services on the ground of abandonment.

The LA dismissed the complaint holding that Leron's termination from

employment was valid. Leron appealed . The NLRC affirmed the
decision of Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rosalio A. Leron was validly dismissed from

employment by Demex Rattancraft, Inc. and Narciso T. Dela Merced on the
ground of abandonment of work

RULING: No. The determination of whether or not an employee is guilty of

abandonment involves a review on the probative value of the evidence
presented by each party and the correctness of the lower courts'
assessments. The Court of Appeals' finding that respondent did not
abandon his work would generally be binding upon the parties and this
Court. However, an exception should be made in this case considering that
there is a variance in the findings of the Court of Appeals and the National
Labor Relations Commission.
PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY, INC. vs. CELSO E.
FUENTES (G.R. No. 169303, February 11, 2015)

FACTS: Celso E. Fuentes, a security guard by Protective designated at

Post 33. NPA ransacked Post 33 and took some firearms, Agency-issued
uniforms and personal items. On the same day, Fuentes and his fellow
security guards reported the raid to the PNP. However, a complaint for
robbery committed by a band against Fuentes was filed due to the affidavit
of Lindo, Jr. and Cempron that Fuentes conspired and acted in consort with
the New People’s Army basing.

While was Fuentes was detained, he alleged that he was "mauled

and tied up by the security officers of Protective." The OPP of dismissed
due to lack of Probable cause. Fuentes right after the criminal complaint
was dismissed, demanded to return to work but he was refused entry on
the ground that he was a member of the NPA and that his position had
already been filled up by another security guard. Fuentes filed the
Complaint "for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, overtime pay,
premium pay for holiday and rest day, 13th month pay, service incentive
leave and damages against Protective. On their part petitioner alleged that
Fuentes abandoned his work and that he only filed for illegal dismissal after
6 months.

ISSUE: Whether or not Fuentes abandoned his work to constitute legal

dismissal

RULING: Yes. Abandonment constitutes a just cause for dismissal

because "the law in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither
oppression nor self-destruction of the employer." The employer cannot be
compelled to maintain an employee who is remiss in fulfilling his duties to
the employer, particularly the fundamental task of reporting to work.

Respondent reported for work after August 15, 2001, when the
criminal Complaint against him was dropped but petitioner refused to allow
respondent to resume his employment because petitioner believed that
respondent was a member of the New People’s Army and had already
hired a replacement.
ENGINEER MANOLITO P. MENDOZA vs.  COMMISSION ON AUDIT
(G.R. No.  195395, September 10, 2013)

FACTS: Mendoza is the general manager of Talisay Water District in

Talisay City, Negros Occidental. The Water District was formed pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 198, otherwise known as the “Provincial Water
Utilities Act of 1973.” The Commission on Audit disallowed a total amount
of P3 80,208.00 which Mendoza received as part of his salary as the Water
District’s general manager from 2005 to 2006. The Commission found that
petitioner Mendoza’s salary as general manager “was not in consonance
with the rate prescribed under the Salary Standardization Law. Commission
on Audit issued the “Notice of Finality of COA Decision” informing petitioner
Mendoza of the finality of the Notice of Disallowance/s. The Commission
then instructed the Talisay Water District cashier to withhold petitioner
Mendoza’s salaries. Petitioner Mendoza filed his Motion for
Reconsideration of the “Notice of Finality of COA Decision.” He assailed
the finality of the Notice of Disallowance/s, arguing that he had not
personally received a copy of this. This deprived him of the opportunity to
answer the Notice immediately. The Commission on Audit denied petitioner
Mendoza’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Mendoza filed
Petition to set aside the Commission on Audit’s Decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mendoza was afforded due process even if he did
not personally received the notice of Disallowance

RULING: Yes. The Notice of Disallowance/s became final and executory.

Petitioner Mendoza was afforded due process despite his claim that he had
never personally received a copy of the Notice of Disallowance/s. He was
able to file the Motion for Reconsideration. The Commission gave due
course to the Motion and ruled on the merits. Petitioner Mendoza,
therefore, has been duly afforded an opportunity to explain his side and
seek a reconsideration of the ruling he assails, which is the “essence of
administrative due process.”

Quintero had no hand in fixing the amount of the salary he received

as it was fixed pursuant to the resolution issued by the BOD of CCWD.
Also, at the time his salary increase was approved, there was no
categorical pronouncement yet from the Court that the LWDs were subject
to the coverage of the SSL.
MARITIME CORPORATION/EDUARDO MANESE AND PRINCESS
CRUISE LINES, LTD vs. CYNTHIA DE JESUS (G.R. No. 203943, August
30, 2017)

FACTS: Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, the local manning agent of

Princess Cruise Lines, Limited, hired Bernardine De Jesus as an
Accommodation Supervisor for the cruise ship Regal Princess. Based on
the contract of employment that he signed, Bernardine was to receive a
basic monthly wage of US$388.00 for a period of 10 months. Bernardine
boarded Regal Princess and he eventually disembarked 10 months later, or
on January 16, 2007, after his contract of employment ended. Cynthia De
Jesus , Bernardine's widow, filed a complaint against Magsaysay for
"payment of death benefits, medical expenses, sickness allowance,
damages, and attorney's fees." She and Magsaysay were unable to
amicably settle the case; hence, they were directed to submit their
respective position papers.

The Labor Arbiter granted Cynthia's complaint and directed Magsaysay to

pay her claims for death benefits, additional benefits, burial expenses, and
attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled that it was highly improbable that
Bernardine developed a cardio-vascular disease which would lead to his
death merely two months after his repatriation. The Labor Arbiter held that
Cynthia sufficiently established that her husband suffered chest pains while
he was still aboard the Regal Princess. She claimed that he had reported
his condition but he was not provided with medical attention. Furthermore,
he had also asked for medical attention upon his repatriation, but his
request was once again denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not 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

RULING: No. The National Labor Relations Commission upheld the Labor
Arbiter's finding that Bernardine's cardio-vascular disease was work-
related. The National Labor Relations Commission also noted that while the
general rule in compensability of death is that a seafarer's death must have
occurred during the term of the employment contract, an exception to this
rule is when a seafarer contracted an illness while under the contract and
this illness caused his death.
RICHARD N. RIVERA vs. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC. AND 
RIZA A. MOISES (G.R. No. 215568, August 03, 2015)

FACTS: Rivera was employed by Genesis as a bus conductor. Moises is

Genesis’ president and general manager. Rivera acknowledged that he
was dismissed by Genesis on account of a discrepancy in the amount he
declared on bus ticket receipts. He alleged that on June 10, 2010, he
received a Memorandum giving him 24 hours to explain why he should not
be sanctioned for reporting and remitting the amount of P198 instead of the
admittedly correct amount of P394 worth of bus ticket receipts. He
responded that it was an honest mistake, which he was unable to correct
"because the bus encountered mechanical problems.
Genesis’ inspector Villaseran conducted a "man to man" inspection
on the tickets held by the passengers on board in San Fernando,
Pampanga. In the course of his inspection, he noticed that Ticket No.
723374 VA had a written corrected amount of P394. However, the amount
marked by perforations made on the ticket, which was the amount originally
indicated by the bus conductor, was only P198. Upon inquiring with the
passenger holding the ticket, Villaseran found out that the passenger paid
P500 to Rivera, who gave her change in the amount of P106. Upon
verification, it was found that Rivera only remitted P198.
Genesis served on Rivera a written notice informing him that a
hearing of his case was set on July 23, 2010. Despite his explanations,
Rivera's services were terminated through a written notice dated July 30,
2010. Contending that this termination was arbitrary and not based on just
causes for terminating employment, he filed the Complaint for illegal
dismissal, which is subject of this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rivera was dismissed for just cause

RULING: No. It is the policy of the state to assure the right of workers to
"security of tenure" (Article XIII, Sec. 3 of the New Constitution, Section 9,
Article II of the 1973 Constitution). The guarantee is an act of social justice.
When a person has no property, his job may possibly be his only possession
or means of livelihood. Dismissal is not justified for being arbitrary where the
workers were denied due process and a clear denial of due process, or
constitutional right must be safeguarded against at all times. 
MOL SHIP MANAGEMENT (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. vs.  MICHAEL
PADERES ATRAJE (G.R. No.  229192, July 23, 2018)
FACTS: On February 11, 2014, Atraje entered into a Contract of Employment
with Mol Ship, through its local manning agent, Magsaysay Mol, to work on
board the vessel Carnation Ace as Second Cook. The employment contract
was for nine months with a basic monthly salary of US$599.00. It was his
seventh contract with the company.
Atraje arrived in the Philippines on March 12, 2014, and was referred to
Shiphealth, Inc.  for further medical evaluation and treatment. He was noted
to have left-sided hemiparesis. He underwent repeat brain CT scan,
electrocardiography, EEG, and brain MRI, which showed normal results. He
was advised to undergo physical therapy for motor function and muscle
strength improvements.
On April 25, 2014, Shiphealth issued a medical report stating that the
Neurologist service's reassessment was single seizure episode. There was
no indication for Atraje to undergo further diagnostic or treatment intervention
neurology-wise. Hence, Atraje was discharged from Neurology service,
although referral to Orthopedic Spine Surgery was recommended.
Atraje sought payment of disability benefits from Magsaysay Mol and
Mol Ship, invoking Article 28 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between
All Japan Seamen's Union/Associated Marine Officers' and Seamen's Union
of the Philippines, and Mol Ship, represented by Magsaysay Mol. He filed a
Complaint against Magsaysay Mol and Mol Ship for payment of total and
permanent disability benefits, damages, and attorney's fees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of
permanent and total disability benefits in favor of respondent Michael
Paderes Atraje
RULING: No. Court denies the petition. In this case, it has been established
that there was history of trauma at work involving respondent while on board
the vessel. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators held that substantial
evidence exists showing that respondent indeed suffered a fall while on board
the ship, which caused injury to his neck area and his wrist.
As a rule, a Rule 45 review by this Court in labor cases does not delve
into factual questions or to an evaluation of the evidence submitted by the
parties. This Court is tasked to merely determine the legal correctness of the
Court of Appeals' conclusion that found no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in awarding full disability benefits to
respondent. Even so, this Court finds Capt. Pisarenko's Certification proffered
by petitioners insufficient to prove their claim that Atraje did not incur an
accident.
ARIEL A. EBUENGA vs. SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES, INC., WILHEMSEN
SHIP MANAGEMENT HOLDING LTD., AND CAPT. SONNY VALENCIA
(G.R. No.  208396, March 14, 2018)
FACTS: Ebuenga was a chief cook of Wilhemsen Ship Management
Holding Ltd.'s (Wilhemsen) vessel, MTV Super Adventure. About two
months into his engagement, he was repatriated. Without consulting
Southfield's designated physician, Ebuenga had himself checked at St.
Luke's Medical Center where he underwent Magnetic Resonance
Imaging. The test revealed that he was afflicted with "Multilevel Disk
Dessication. He was advised to undergo physical therapy.

Ebuenga undergo physical therapy sessions. Thereafter, he was

issued with a Disability Report, finding him to be permanently disabled
and no longer fit to work as a seafarer. Consequently, Ebuenga filed a
complaint for permanent disability benefits. Respondents denied
Ebuenga’s claim for disability benefits. It could not be entertained as he
failed to undergo the requisite post-employment medical examination
with the company-designated physician. Ebuenga filed the present
Petition contending that he could not have forfeited his claims as
respondents refused to have the company-designated physician
examine him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ariel A. Ebuenga is entitled to permanent disability

benefits

RULING: No. Section 20(B) of the Philippine Overseas Employment

Administration-Standard Employment Contract established the
procedures for assessing claims for disability benefits. It mandates
seafarers to see a company-designated physician for a post-employment
medical examination, which must be done within three working days from
their arrival. Failure to comply shall result in the forfeiture of the right to
claim disability benefits. Even if this Court were to overlook petitioner's
utter failure to substantiate his version of events, no award of disability
benefits is availing as petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his
affliction was work-related.
PEDRO C. PEREA vs. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT PHILIPPINES,
INC., AUGUSTEA ATLANTICA SRL/ITALY, AND CAPTAIN ANTONIO S.
NOMBRADO (G.R. No. 206178, August 09, 2017)

FACTS:  Perea entered into a Contract of Employment with Elburg

Shipmanagement Philippines, Inc. (Elburg) under its principal Augustea
Atlantica SRL/Italy. Perea was hired as a fitter for a period of nine months
with a basic monthly salary of US$698.00. On October 31, 2009, Perea
was deployed to work aboard MV Lemno.
Perea had difficulty breathing while repairing a pipe. The following
day, he had chest pains with palpitations. He was seen by a doctor that
same afternoon and was advised to take medication and to rest for three
consecutive days. However, he did not feel any better even after resting
and taking medications; thus, he asked to be repatriated. A few days later,
Perea was welding when the oxygen and acetylene torch he was holding
exploded. He hit his left shoulder and twisted his fingers in trying to avoid
the explosion. He took a pain reliever to ease the pain but three days later,
he found that two of his fingers had grown numb.
On November 5, 2010, after a series of examinations, Dr. Hao-Quan
and Dr. Lim certified that Perea was cleared of the injuries that caused his
repatriation. The parties met for mediation proceedings and a possible
compromise agreement but were unsuccessful. They were then directed to
submit their respective position papers, together with their supporting
evidence. On February 28, 2011, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Perea's
complaint for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the concealed pre-existing condition was rightly

ruled upon by the National Labor Relations Commission when it was not
raised by any of the parties
RULING: Yes. The National Labor Relations Commission clearly erred in
considering a matter that was never raised for resolution on appeal.
However, contrary to petitioner's assertions, the dismissal of his claim was
not brought about by his concealment of a pre-existing condition. Rather,
his complaint was rightly dismissed by the Court of Appeals because of his
failure to substantially corroborate his claim that he was unfit to work as a
seafarer.
YOLANDO BRAVO vs. URIOS COLLEGE (NOW FATHER SATURNINO
URI OS UNIVERSITY) and/or FR. JOHN CHRISTIAN U. YOUNG (G.R.
No. 198066 June 7, 2017)

FACTS: Bravo was employed as a part-time teacher in 1988 by Urios

College, now called Father Satumino Urios University. In addition to his
duties as a part-time teacher, Bravo was designated as the school's
comptroller from June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2002. The implementation of
the new ranking system for non-academic employees and administrators
for school year 2001-2002 and the corresponding schedule of salary
adjustments were reflected on the October 15, 2001 payroll. This was
opposed by several individuals within the school. In October 2004, Urios
College organized a committee to review the ranking system
implemented during school year 2001-2002.
Bravo was found guilty of serious misconduct for which he was
ordered to return the sum of ₱ 179,319.16, representing overpayment of
his monthly salary. Executive Labor Arbiter Pelaez dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit.Bravo's act of"assigning to himself an
excessive and unauthorized salary rate while working, he constituted
serious misconduct and willful breach of trust and confidence for which
he may be dismissed. Bravo appealed the Decision of Executive Labor
Arbiter Pelaez.
Respondent contends that petitioner's right to procedural due
process was not violated. Petitioner was present during the hearings and
was even given copies of the documents presented against him.
Moreover, respondent required petitioner to submit his position paper
after the investigation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bravo’s employment was terminated for a just

cause

RULING: No. Respondent complied with all the requirements of

procedural due process in terminating petitioner's employment.
Respondent furnished petitioner a show cause memo stating the specific
grounds for dismissal. The show cause memo also required petitioner to
answer the charges by submitting a written explanation Respondent
even informed petitioner that he may avail the services of counsel.
Respondent then conducted a thorough investigation. Three hearings
were conducted on separate occasions. The findings of the investigation
committee were then sent to petitioner. Lastly, petitioner was given a
notice of termination containing respondent’s final decision
OSCAR M. PARINGIT vs. GLOBAL GATEWAY CREWING SERVICES,
INC. MID-SOUTH SHIP AND CREW MANAGEMENT, INC., AND/OR
CAPTAIN SIMEON FLORES (G.R. No. 217123, February 06, 2019)

FACTS: Paringit entered into a six-month employment contract with Mid-

South Ship and Crew Management, Inc., representing Seaworld Marine
Services, S.A. He was employed as Chief Mate of the Panaman vessel
Tsavliris Hellas. A few months later, Paringit began to feel constantly
fatigued and stressed. He also noticed blood in his feces. Paringit
consulted a valvular heart specialist at the Philippine Heart Center who
advised him to have a repeat 2D echocardiogram and coronary
angiography.
Paringit filed a Complaint for medical expenses and other money claims
against Global Gateway Crewing Services, Inc. (Global Gateway), Mid-
South Ship & Crew Management, Inc., Seaworld Marine Services, S.A.,
and Captain Flores, president of Global Gateway. He  executed a
quitclaim and Labor Arbiter Savari found that since Dr. Donato-Tan
declared Paringit's unfitness to work as a seafarer, his disability was total
and permanent.

ISSUE: Whether or not Paringit was entitled to permanent total disability

benefits, his illness being work-related and acquired during the term of
his employment contract

RULING: Yes. Court of Appeals noted that Paringit filed his Complaint
124 days after his medical repatriation, which was still well within the
240-day medical treatment period granted to his employer. Thus, the
Complaint was premature since he had no cause of action for his claim
of total and permanent disability benefits. The POEA Standard
Employment Contract spells out the conditions for compensability. Here,
the compensability of petitioner's condition is clear; however, instead of
fulfilling its responsibilities, respondent Global Gateway delayed his
treatment and raised technical procedural barriers that were clearly
unwarranted.
Shipowners who avail of Filipino hands on their decks take on the
obligations of their contracts. Their crew members risk their lives and
spend inordinate amounts of time attending to their businesses. Here, it
would have been a measure of good business practice and a show of
justice for respondents to have promptly attended to the people that
make their businesses possible.
LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE OF MANILA, et al v. VIRGINIA PASCUA,
MD (G.R. No. 214744, March 14, 2018)
FACTS: Dr. Pascua’s services as school physician were engaged by
petitioner La Consolacion sometime in 2000. She started working part-time
before serving full-time from 2008.

In a meeting set to discuss her “working condition”, Pascua was handed a

termination of employment letter, explaining the reasons for and the terms
of her dismissal, including payment of separation pay.
Not satisfied, Pascua wrote a letter pointing out that the part-time school
physician should have been considered for dismissal first. She also noted
that rather than dismissing her outright, La Consolacion could have asked
her to revert to part-time status instead. 

La Consolacion, through Sr. Mora, replied to Pascua’s letter and answered

to her queries "as a matter of courtesy." She explained that Pascua in
particular was retrenched because her position, the highest paid in the
health services division, was dispensable. In the letter, Sr. Mora stated that
“Since the purpose of the downsizing was to reduce payroll costs, the
employees with the highest rates of pay would be the first to be retrenched,
if their services could be dispensed with. For this reason, you were the
employee terminated”.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dr. Pascua’s retrenchment had the highest rate
of pay and justified her dismissal
RULING: No. The Labor Code recognizes retrenchment as an authorized
cause for terminating employment. While a legitimate business option,
retrenchment may only be exercised in compliance with substantive and
procedural requisites. It may have made mathematical sense to dismiss the
highest paid employee first. However, appraising the propriety of
retrenchment is not merely a matter of enabling an employer to augment
financial prospects. It is as much a matter of giving employees their just
due. Employees who have earned their keep by demonstrating exemplary
performance and securing roles in their respective organizations cannot be
summarily disregarded by nakedly pecuniary considerations. The Labor
Code's permissiveness towards retrenchments aims to strike a balance
between legitimate management prerogatives and the demands of social
justice. Concern for the employer cannot mean a disregard for employees
who have shown not only their capacity, but even loyalty.
LOURDES C. RODRIGUEZ vs. PARK N RIDE INC.NICEST (PHILS)
INC./GRAND LEISURE CORP./SPS. VICENTE & ESTELITA B.
JAVIER (G.R. No. 222980 March 20, 2017)

FACTS: Rodriguez filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal, non-

payment of service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay, including
claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against Park
N Ride, Vicest Phils., Grand Leisure, and the Javier Spouses. Rodriguez
alleged that she was employed on January 30, 1984 as Restaurant
Supervisor at Vicest Phils. Javier Spouses established Park N Ride, a
business that provided terminal parking and leasing. On one occasion,
Rodriguez asked the Javier Spouses if she could go home by 10:00 a.m. to
attend a family reunion, but her request was denied and claimed that
Rodriguez was not entitled to service incentive leave pay, moral and
exemplary damages, attorney's fees and director's fee They averred that
they were willing to pay Rodriguez the 13th month pay differentials, as
soon as Rodriguez completed her clearance.

Labor Arbiter Antonio R. Macam rendered a decision dismissing

Rodriguez's Complaint for lack of merit. The summary of evidence pointed
to the voluntariness of Rodriguez's resignation rather than the existence of
a hostile and frustrating working environment.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rodriguez was entitled to moral and exemplary

damages considering that she was not illegally dismissed

RULING: No. The prescriptive period with respect to petitioner's claim for
her entire service incentive leave pay commenced only from the time of her
resignation or separation from employment. Since petitioner had filed her
complaint on October 7, 2009, or a few days after her resignation in
September 2009, her claim for service incentive leave pay has not
prescribed. Accordingly, petitioner must be awarded service incentive leave
pay for her entire 25 years of service-from 1984 to 2009-and not only three
years' worth (2006 to 2009) as determined by the Court of Appeals. On the
monetary claims, petitioner is not entitled to moral and exemplary damages
considering that she was not illegally dismissed.

On the other hand, with respect to service incentive leave pay, the Court of
Appeals limited the award thereof to three (3) years (2006 to 2009) only
due to the prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code.
DR. JOSEPH L. MALIXI, DR. EMELITA Q. FIRMACION, IVIARIETTA
MENDOZA, AURORA AGUSTIN, NORA AGUILAR, MA. THERESA M.
BEFETEL, and MYRNA NISAY vs. DR. GLORY V. BALTAZAR (G.R.
No. 208224 November 22, 2017)
FACTS: Petitioners were employees of Bataan General Hospital and
alleged that the Department of Health and the Province of Bataan
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the construction of
Bataan General Hospital's three-storey building. While this Memorandum
was in effect, the Department of Health, through then Secretary Duque
issued Department Personnel Order No. 2008-1452, appointing Dr.
Baltazar as the hospital's Officer-in-Charge. Petitioners questioned the
validity of Dr. Baltazar's appointment and qualifications. They claimed
that she was appointed only by virtue of an endorsement of the Bataan
Governor and without the prescribed Career Service Executive Board
qualifications.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration and argued that the letter
before the Department of Health was simply a request to meet the
Secretary, and not a Complaint. Furthermore, the letter before the
Department of Health and the Complaint before the Civil Service
Commission did not contain the same parties or seek the same relief.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dr. Baltazar be held administratively liable for

gross misconduct and that she be dismissed from service
RULING: Yes. Department Personnel Order No. 2008-1452, which
designated respondent as Officer-in-Charge of Bataan General Hospital,
Was signed by then Department of Health Secretary Duque. Duque was
also tl1e signatory in the 2008 Memorandum of Agreement, the undated
Supplemental Memorandum of Agreement, and the June 16, 2009
Memornnduh1 of Agreement. Duque was later appointed as Civil Service
Commission Chairman and signed the October 17, 2011 Decision and
the July 17, 2012 Resolution of the Civil. Service Commission,
dismissing the complaint against respondent. Clearly, a conflict of
interest existed when the public officer authorizing the secondment of
respondent was also the same person dismissing the complaint
questioning respondent's secondment.
In the interest of judicial economy, the Court of Appeals should
avoid dismissal of cases based merely on technical grounds. Judicial
economy requires the prosecution of cases "with the least cost to the
parties" and to the courts' time, effort, and resources. Forum shopping,
in the concept of res judicata, is applicable to judgments or decisions of
administrative agencies performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES AND BRENDA J. BETIA vs. MA.
JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO, MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG,
ROUEN RUTH A. CRISTOBAL AND LORAINE S. SCHNEIDER-CRUZ
(G.R. No. 198587 January 14, 2015)

FACTS: Respondents were regular flight attendants and were illegally

terminated by petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines due to their pregnancy
which was alleged as a ground for termination under their employment
contract. Respondents were told that if they did not resign, Saudia would
terminate them all the same. The threat of termination entailed the loss
of benefits, such as separation pay and ticket discount entitlements.
A year later, respondents filed a complaint against Saudia for
illegal dismissal; the case was assigned to Labor Arbiter Suelo. Saudia
assailed the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter claiming that the complaint
be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens and that the
respondents had no cause of action as they resigned voluntarily.
Respondents have not produced proof to show that Brenda J. Betia
acted in bad faith or with malice as regards their termination. Thus, she
may not be held solidarity liable with Saudia.

ISSUE: Whether or not case should be dismissed on the ground of forum

non conveniens

RULING: No. On the matter of pleading forum non conveniens, we state

the rule, thus: forum non conveniens may not only be clearly pleaded as a
ground for dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest possible
opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived. Furthermore, forum
non conveniens finds no application and does not operate to divest
Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction and to require the application of foreign
law. Saudia invokes forum non conveniens to supposedly effectuate the
stipulations of the Cabin Attendant contracts that require the application of
the laws of Saudi Arabia.
In addition, there is no basis for concluding that the case can be
more conveniently tried elsewhere because Saudia is doing business in
the Philippines and all four respondents are Filipino citizens, thus Saudia
may be tried under the jurisdiction of Philippine tribunals.

MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS vs.

PHILIPPINE  LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY
INCORPORATED (G.R. No. 190389, April 19, 2017)

FACTS: Manggawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas representing the

employees of PLDT, filed two notices of strike and charged PLDT of unfair
labor practices for PLDT’s alleged transfer of several employees of its
Provisioning Support division from Bicutan to Taguig, abolition of a division,
farming out of jobs to casuals and contractual, unreasonable refusal to
provide MKP its comprehensive plan/s with respect to personnel
downsizing/ reorganization and closure of exchanges, continued hiring of
"contractual," "temporary," "project," and "casual" employees for regular
jobs performed by union members, resulting in the decimation of the union
membership and in the denial of the right to self-organization to the
concerned employees, alleged restructuring of Operation Services and its
closure of traffic operations at various regional operator services. PLDT
declared only 323 employees as redundant as it was able to redeploy 180
of the 503 affected employees to other positions. The Secretary of Labor
certified the labor dispute for compulsory arbitration. All striking workers
were directed to return to work within twenty four hours except those who
were terminated due to redundancy. NLRC dismissed the charges of ULP
against PLDT and ruled that PLDT’s redundancy program was valid and
did not constitute ULP.  

ISSUE: Whether or not the redundancy program of PLDT is valid

RULING: Yes. Redundancy exists when the services of an employee are in

excess of what is reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the
enterprise. Redundancy is one of the authorized causes for the termination
of employment provided for in Article 298 of the Labor Code, as amended.
To establish good faith, the company must provide substantial proof that
the services of the employees are in excess of what is required of the
company, and that fair and reasonable criteria were used to determine the
redundant positions. PLDT Company's declaration of redundancy was
backed by substantial evidence showing a consistent decline for operator-
assisted calls for both local and international calls because of cheaper
alternatives like direct dialing services, and the growth of wireless
communication. With these, the court ruled that the redundancy program of
PLDT is valid. Nonetheless, there is a need to review the redundancy
package awarded to the employees terminated due to redundancy.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY
PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION 3rd DIVISION &
NACUSIP/BISUDECO CHAPTER/GEORGE EMATA, DOMINGO
REBANCOS, NELSON BERINA, ROBERTO TIRAO, AMADO VILLOTE
& BIENVENIDO FELINA (G.R. No. 174747 March 09, 2016)

FACTS: Bicolandia Sugar Development Corporation, with the conformity

of Asset Privatization Trust, entered into a Supervision and Financing
Agreement with Philippine Sugar Corporation for the latter to operate and
manage the mill until August 31, 1992. Asset Privatization Trust,
pursuant to its mandate to dispose of government properties for
privatization, decided to sell the assets and properties of Bicolandia
Sugar Development Corporation.
Several members of the NACUSIP/BISUDECO Chapter filed a
complaint charging Asset Privatization Trust, Bicolandia Sugar
Development Corporation, Philippine Sugar Corporation, and Bicol Agro-
Industrial Producers Cooperative, Incorporated-Peñafrancia Sugar Mill
with unfair labor practice, union busting, and claims for labor standard
benefits.
The Labor Arbiter found that there was no union busting when
Asset Privatization Trust and Philippine Sugar Corporation disposed of
Bicolandia Sugar Development Corporation's assets and properties since
Asset Privatization Trust was merely disposing of a non-performing asset
of government, pursuant to its mandate under Proclamation No. 50.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents' claim for labor standard benefits

had already prescribed under Article 291 of the Labor Code

RULING: No. Respondents' checks were released by petitioner to the

Arbitration Branch of the Labor Arbiter in 1992 and presumed that funds
to be used for private respondents' separation benefits have already
been appropriated and disbursed. It would account for why they were
able to claim their checks without need of filing a separate claim before
the COA. Court has stated that "in the computation of the three-year
prescriptive period, a determination must be made as to the period when
the act constituting a violation of the workers' right to the benefits being
claimed was committed." The separation benefits may be released to
them without filing a separate money claim. It would be unjust and a
violation of their right to equal protection if they were not allowed to
claim.
JULITA M. ALDOVINO, JOAN B. LAGRIMAS, WINNIE B. LINGAT,
CHITA A. SALES, SHERLY L. GUINTO, REVILLA S. DE JESUS, AND
LAILA V. ORPILLA vs. GOLD AND GREEN MANPOWER
MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., SAGE
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LTD., AND ALBERTO
C. ALVINA (G.R. No. 200811 June 19, 2019)

FACTS: Aldovino and her co-applicants applied for work at Gold and
Green Manpower Management and Development Services, Inc., a local
manning agency whose foreign principal is Sage International Development
Company, Ltd. Respondents claim that the Compromise Agreement
containing Affidavit of Quitclaim and Release barred petitioners from
holding them liable for claims. They further justify the dismissal by arguing
that petitioners voluntarily severed their employment when they signed the
Compromise Agreement.
The parties met before the Bureau of Labor Affairs for a dialogue.
There, Dipper Semi-Conductor ordered Aldovino and her co-workers to
return to the Philippines as it was no longer interested in their services.
They were then made to immediately pack their belongings, after which
they were dropped off at a train station in Taipei. Labor Arbiter dismissed
the Complaint for illegal dismissal but ordered Gold and Green Manpower
and Sage International to pay each of the workers P20,000.00 as financial
assistance.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the award of salaries

based on the actual unexpired portion of their employment contracts

RULING: Yes. The award of petitioners' salaries, in relation to the three-

month cap, must be modified accordingly. A statute declared
unconstitutional "confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been
passed at all." Incorporating a similarly worded provision in a subsequent
legislation does not cure its unconstitutionality. Without any discemable
change in the circumstances warranting a reversal, this Court will not
hesitate to strike down the same provision.
Respondents Gold and Green Manpower Management and
Development Services, Inc., Sage International Development Company,
Ltd., and Alberto C. Alvina are ordered to pay petitioners.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA

CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO (G.R. No. 173921
February 24, 2016)

FACTS: PAL severed the employment of Isagani Dawal, Lorna

Concepcion and Bonifacio Sinobago. Dawal served as Chief
Storekeeper, Concepcion as Master Avionics Mechanic A, and Sinobago
as Aircraft Master "A" Mechanic. Until their dismissal from work, they
were regular rank-and-file employees of PAL and "bona fide
members" of the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association.
Zapanta allegedly wrote to PALEA, informing the latter of the "new
management's plan to sell" the Maintenance and Engineering
Department.
PAL issued a Notice of Separation to all the affected employees,
containing either of the following letters: (1) offer of new employment
from Lufthansa, should it choose to hire the affected employees; or (2)
PAL's offer of employment for a lower rank or job grade and for a lesser
salary, should Lufthansa not choose to hire the affected employees.

ISSUE: Whether or not termination of the employment of Dawal, et al

was due to an authorized cause, could be justified as redundancy or
retrenchment

RULING: No. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Dawal, et al. are
entitled to reinstatement with full backwages or additional separation pay
plus backwages. PAL failed to prove all the requisites for a valid
dismissal due to retrenchment. Whether there was redundancy or
retrenchment, or redundancy caused by retrenchment, this court agrees
with the Court of Appeals' and the Labor Arbiter's finding that PAL
illegally terminated the services of Dawal, et al. Where reinstatement is
not possible, an employee is entitled to separation pay in addition to
one's monetary claims. Damages may also be awarded if the dismissal
was done in bad faith.
Moreover, for having been compelled to litigate, Dawal, et al. are
entitled to an award for reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to Article
2208(7) of the Civil Code. Both the Labor Arbiter and the Court of
Appeals found the amount equivalent to 10% of their total award to be
reasonable.
SONEDCO WORKERS FREE LABOR UNION (SWOFLU)/ Renato
Yude et al, vs.  UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, SUGAR
DIVISION-SOUTHERN NEGROS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(G.R. No.  220383 October 05, 2016)

FACTS: URC-SONEDCO and Philippine Agricultural Commercial and

Industrial Workers Union then the exclusive bargaining representative of
URC-SONEDCO's rank-and-file employees, entered into a Collective
Bargaining Agreement effective January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006.
URC-SONEDCO consistently refused to negotiate a new collective
bargaining agreement with SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union,
despite several demands from SONEDCO Workers Free Labor Union,
allegedly due to the 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement, which it
signed with PACIWU-TUCP.
National Labor Relations Commission sustained the Labor Arbiter's
Decision that the requirement of a waiver before the release of the
benefits for 2007 and 2008 did not constitute unfair labor practice. The
National Labor Relations Commission likewise affirmed the decision to
award the wage increase to the employees who initially refused to sign
the waiver.

ISSUE: Whether or not Universal Robina Corporation Sugar Division

SONEDCO committed unfair labor practice

RULING: Yes. Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of

workers and employees to self-organization are inimical to the legitimate
interests of both labor and management, including their right to bargain
collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an atmosphere of
freedom and mutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder the
promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations. As the
conscience of the government, it is the Courts sworn duty to ensure that
none trifles with labor rights.
Universal Robina Corporation. Sugar Division - Southern Negros
Development Corporation is guilty of unfair labor practice and
is ordered to pay each of the petitioners the wage increase of P16.00 for
the years 2007 and 2008; and to pay SONEDCO Workers Free Labor
Union moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00; and exemplary
damages in the amount of P200,000.00.