CALALANG VS.

WILLIAMS
Facts:
Maximo Calalang filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against the following respondents: A.D
Williams (Chairman of the National Traffic Commission), Sergio Bayan (Acting Secretary of
Public Works and Communication), Juan Dominguez (Acting Chief of Police of Manila),
Vecente Fragante (Director of Public Works), and Fulogio Rodriguez (Mayor of Manila). It is
alleged in the petition that the respondents have caused and enforced the prohibition of animal-
drawn vehicles from passing along Rosario St. extending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to
Dasmarinas Street (from 7:30am-12:30pm and from 1:30-5:30p.m.); and Rizal Avenue extending
from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street (from 7-11a.m.) for a period of
one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge, to the detriment not only of their
owners but of the riding public as well.
The petitioner contends that the regulation on national roads violates the Constitutional precepts
regarding the promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic security of all
the people.

Issue/s:
Does C.A. no. 548 violates the constitution on delegation of power?

Held:
It is clear that Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,"
but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so
that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.

Therefore, in view of the above principle, the writ of prohibition prayed is hereby denied with
additional charges of this case against the petitioner.

DOCTRINE:
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of
society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying
the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
JUSTA G. GUIDO v. RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION C, GR No. L-2089, 1949-10-
31

FACTS:
Petitioner Justa G. Guido to prohibit the Rural Progress Administration and Judge Oscar Court of
First Instance of Rizal, from proceeding with the expropriation of petitiner’s lands with a total
combined area of 22,655sqm located at Maypajo Caloocan, Rizal on the grounds that: "(1) That
the respondent RPA (Rural Progress Administration) acted without jurisdiction or corporate
power in filing the expropriation complaint and has no authority to negotiate with the RFC a loan
of P100,000 to be used as part payment of the value of the land. (2) That the land sought to be
expropriated is commercial and therefore excluded within the purview of the provisions of Act
539. (3) That majority of the tenants have entered with the petitioner valid contracts for lease, or
option to buy at an agreed price, and expropriation would impair those existing obligation of
contract. (4) That respondent Judge erred in fixing the provisional value of the land at
P118,780.00 only and in ordering its delivery to the respondent RPA.

ISSUES:
That respondent acted in the filing of expropriation complain and that it has no authority to
negotiate with the RFC for the loan to be used as part payment to the value of the land. Secondly,
the land to be expropriated is not covered under the provision of Act 530 because it is a
commercial property. Third, there are tenants who have existing contracts with the petitioner ant
that there right to first refusal would be impaired. And lastly, the respondent judge erred in fixing
the provisional value of the land and ordering its delivery to respondent RPA.

HELD:
While it is true that the right of the tenants should not be violated. Without the sound
interpretation thus given this court restricting within reasonable bounds the application of the
provision of section 4 of article 13 of our constitution and clarifying the powers of Rural
Progress Administration under C.A. 539 might place the Government under awkward
predicament of veering towards socialism, a step not foreseen or intended by the constitution.
AGABON vs NLRC GR 158693

FACTS:
Petition for review prays to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 23, 2003
and to modify the decision National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC-NCR case
No. 023442-00. Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the business
of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It employed petitioners Virgilio
Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board and cornice installers on January 2, 1992 until
February 23, 1999 when they were dismissed for abandonment of work. Thus, Petitioners then
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of money claims. Petitioners also claims that
private respondent did not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing and maintained
that the petitioners were not dismissed but had abandoned their work.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed or not.

HELD:
The court deny the petition for lack of merit and affirm the decision of the court of Appeals dated
Januray 23, 2003, and hold that henceforth, dismissals for just cause may not be invalidated due
to failure to observe the due process requirements under the Labor Code, and that only
indemnity award available to the employee dismissed for just cause are damages under the civil
code as duly proven. Any and all previous rulings and statement of the court inconsistent with
this are now deemed inoperative.
CEBU ROYAL PLANT (SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION), vs.
THE HONORABLE DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR and RAMON PILONES, G.R. No. L-
58639 August 12, 1987

FACTS:
Ramon Pilones was terminated of his work because of a medical test result suggests that his
sickness is uncurable in six months. Pinlones filed a complaint about his termination before the
Ministry of Labor which dismissed the same. The dismissal was reversed by the public
respondent who ordered the reinstatement and payment of wages. In addition, the public
respondent argues that Pinones was a permanent employee during the time he was terminated
and therefore violates his security of tenure. The petitioner’s allegation regarding the health
condition of Pilones was not certified incurable within six months to justify their action in
terminating Pilones.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the termination of Pilones’s employment was proper.

HELD:
The court agree that there was here an attempt to circumvent the law by separating the employee
after five months’ service to prevent him from becoming a regular employee, and then rehiring
them on probation, again without security of tenure. The court cannot permit this subterfuge if
we are to be true to the spirit and mandate of social justice.
The petition is demised and the temporary restraining order of November 18, 1981, is lifted. The
Order of the public respondent dated July 14, 1981, is reaffirmed, but with the modification that
the back wages shall be limited to three years only and the private respondent shall be reinstated
only upon certification by a competent public health authority that he is fit to return to work.
Costs against the petitioner.

DOCTRINE:
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of
society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying
the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES vs EARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ

FACTS:
Petitioner, Abbot Laboratories is in need of Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager,
Respondent Alcaraz applied for the job and got the job after receiving a confirmation e-mail on
February 5, 2005. The contract was from February 15, 2005, until August 14, 2005 with a
monthly salary of P110,000/month. And it is understood the respondent agrees with the existing
policy of the company.
Respondent have been functioning her job, and she seem to be strict when it comes to company
policy. On may 16, 2005. Respondent was informed that she failed to meet the regularization
standards for the position. Thereafter, Walsh and Terrible requested Alcaraz to tender
resignation, else told that they be forced to terminate her services.
On may 23, 2005, Walsh Almazar and Bernardo personally handed to Alcaraz a letter stating that
her services had been terminated effective May 19, 2005.
Alcarzaz felt they she was unjustly terminated and cited Art 295 of the Labor Code. She then
alleged when they threaten to terminate her. she was told not to enter the company even though
she is still an employee and that they have announce her resignation upon all her co-employee.
On the contrary, petitioners maintained that Alcaraz was validly terminated from her
probationary employment.
LA ruled on March 30, 2006 to dismissed Alcaraz’s complaint for lack of merit. And ordered to
pay damages in total of P100,000.

ISSUES:
A. Whether or not petitioners are guilty of forum shopping and have violated the
certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court:
B. Whether or noy Alcaraz was sufficiently informed of the reasonable standards to qualify
her as a regular employee:
C. Whether or not Alcaraz was validly terminated from her employment and
D. Whether or not the individual petitioners herein are liable.

HELD:
A. As to the first forum shopping, records show that, except for the element of identity of
parties, the elements of forum shopping do not exist.
B. As to the second, records show that the issue raised in the instant petition and those in the
June 16, 20010 Memorandum of Appeal filed with the NLRC - which in fact had already
 attained finality - the matter of discussing the June 16, 2010 Memorandum of Appeal is
now moot and academic.
C. The court finds that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion. In this case, Abbot
failed to follow the above procedure in evaluating Alcaraz. And violated its own
company policy
D. Alcaraz contention fails to persuade

The petition is granted. The decision dated December 10, 2009 and Resolution dated June
9, 2010 od the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 101045 are herby reversed and set
aside. Accordingly, the decision dated march 30, 2006 of the Labor Arbiter is reinstated
with modification that petitioner abbot laboratories, Philippines be ordered to pay
respondent Alcaraz nominal damages in the amount of P30,00.00 on the account of its
breach of its own company policy.
MA. WENELITA TIRAZONA v. CA, GR No. 169712
FACTS:
On January 15, 2002, Fe Balonzo wrote an open letter that is meant to no one. Later reached to
the PET management of Philippine EDS-Techno Services Inc. (PET), is a corporation duly
registered under Philippine laws and is engaged in the business of designing automotive wiring
harness for automobile manufacturers. Private respondents Ken Kubota, Mamoru Uno and
Junichi Hiroshi, all are Japanese nationals. In her letter, Balonzo complained that Tirazona
humiliated her while she was reporting back to work after a treatment of tuberculosis. Because of
this, Balonzo requested that the necessary action be taken to address the said encounter. The
management was dismissed of service afterwards.

ISSUE:
Whether or not employee Tirazona was legally dismissed from employment.

HELD:
The Court ruled that, when Tirazona accepts a promostion to a managerial psotion or to an office
requiring full trust and confidence, she gives up some of the regid guarantees available to
ordinary workers. Infraction which if committed by others would be overlooked or condoned or
penalties mitigated may be visited with more severe disciplinary action. A company’s resort to
acts of self-defense would be more easily justified. In this case, the actions or Tirazona gives
more than enough grounds and reason for the company to dismiss her and lost their trust.
The petition is hereby denied for lack of merit and the decision of the Court of appeals dated
May 25, 2005 is hereby affirmed. And costs against the petitioner.
G.R. No. 191008, April 11, 2011
QUIRINO LOPEZ VS ALTURAS GROUP OF COMPANIES

FACTS:
Respondent, Alturas Group of Companies hired Petitioner Lopez as truck driver. In 2007,
approimiately 10 years after he is hired, he was caught of smuggling 60 kilos of scrap iron
abroad through company’s Isuzu Cargo Aluminum Van with license plate number PHP 271 that
he is driving.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was afforded proper process regarding his case.

HELD:

The court held that upon reviewing the case at bar, there have been no violation of due process
even if there were no hearing was conducted. Record shows that, petitioner was given a chance
to explain his side regarding the controversy.
Petition is denied, the report dated December 18, 2009 of the Court of Appeals dismissing
petitioner’s complaint is affirmed with modification in that the award of nominal damages in the
amount of P30,000.00 is deleted.
G.R. No. 170351 March 30, 2011
LEYTE GEOTHERMAL POWER PROGRESSIVE EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU -TUCP
VSPHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY – ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
FACTS:
Respondents Geothermal Projects is the Leyte Geothermal Power in Greater. Petitioner filed a
complaint before DOLE against the respondent of unfair labor practice for their refusal to
bargain collectively, union busting and mass termination.
Petitioner declared a strike and staged such strike. The Labor Secretary intervened and issued an
order for compulsory arbitration and return to work order. With the sincerest effort to resolve the
case, the Secretary of Labor failed to resolve the issue amicably.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the members and officers of the union are considered project employees.
Whether the members and officers of the union engaged in illegal strike.

HELD:
With regards to the officers and members of the union who were specifically hired as project
employees by the respondent. Records shows that they are project employees. Petitioners being a
project employee, or to use correct term seasonal employees. Their employment legally ends
upon termination of the project and should not constitute illegal dismissal.
The court denied the petition. The decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A G.R. SP No. 65760 is
affirmed. Costs against petitioner.
MERCURY DRUG CO. Vs. NARDO DAYAO, et al
GR. No. L-30452, September 30, 1982

FACTS:
Nardo Dayao and 70 others filed a petition on March 17, 1956, against Mercury Drug Co. Inc.
and/ Mariano Que, President and general Manager, and Mercury Drug Co. eployees Association
and general manager.
Respondents submitted an affidavit in respond to the petition which was subsequently amended
on January 6, 1966. Some admission and some denials were the contains of the amended
petition. Respondents claim that the petitioner have no legal cause against the respondents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners’ contracts of employment null and void and contrary to law.

HELD:
The court ruled that “no person, firm or corporation business establishments or place of center of
labor shall compel an employee or laborer to work during Sundays and legal holidays unless he
is paid an additional sum of at least twenty per centum of his regular renumeration. Respondent
company employees are covered by Section 4, C.A. No 444.
Therefore, the court ruled that the petition is hereby dismissed. The decision and resolution
appealed from are affirmed with costs against the petitioner.
CAGAMPAN vs. NLRC 195 SCRA 533 G.R NO. 85122-24

FACTS:
Sometimes in April 17 and 18 of 1985. Portioners entered separate contracts of employment with
Golden Light Transport, Ltd. Through its Local agency. Private respondent ACE MARITIME
AGENCY, INC.
Petitioners were deployed on May 7, 1985 and discharged on July 12 1986. Petitioners files a
complaint for non-payment of their overtime pay, vacation pay, and terminal pay against private
respondents.
Respondent was furnished with copies of complaints and summons, but it failed to file an
answer. Thus, on January 12, 1987, an order was issued declaring that private respondent has
waived its right to present evidence in its behalf and that the cases were submitted for decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are entitled to the payments prayed for.

HELD:
Records shows that the claim was if fact in bad faith. Petitioners were actually paid more than
what they are entitled under the contracts. The decision of the NLRC is hereby affirmed with the
modification that petitioners Cagampan and Vicera are awarded their leave pay according to the
terms of the contract.
PNB Vs. PNB EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, G.R. No. L-30279

FACTS:
PNB Employees Association filed a complaint against PNB (petitioner) regarding the proper
compensation of overtime. Respondent (PEMA) wanted to get paid of living allowances granted
and longevity pay granted in 1961 to be included in the compensation. PNB disregarded the
requests.

ISSUE:
Whether or not scost of living allowed and longevity pay should be included in the computation
of overtime pay as held by the CIR.

HELD:
The court ruled that, with regards to cost of living and allowances, there is nothing in the
Commonwealth Act 444 or the eight-hour labor law now Article 87 of Labor Code that could
justify PEMA’s. C.A 444 prescribes that overtime work shall be paid at the same rate as their
regular wage or salary. The court agrees with Industrial Court erred in including the cost of
living allowance and the longevity pay as part of the employee’s basic salary or wage on which
the overtime pay should be based.