LABOR LAW NOTES Prepared by: Professor Diego Atienza
a.) Through flight, one derogates the course of justice by avoiding arrest, detention or continuance of criminal proceedings. The act of an employee to evade arrest does not constitute a valid or justifiable ground for not reporting for work. It shows an intention to abandon work. (Camua, Jr. vs. NLRC, 512 S 677) b.) Absences incurred by an employee who is prevented from reporting for work due to his detention to answer some criminal charge against him is excusable if his detention is baseless, that the criminal charge was not at all supported by sufficient evidence and was dismissed for that reason. It did not amount to abandonment and his dismissal on that account is illegal. (Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. NRLC, 541 S 105)
a.) The term ³academic personnel´ is defined in Section 4 of the Manual of the Regulations for Private Schools as including ³all school personnel who are formally engage in actual teaching service or in research assignments, either on full-time or parttime basis, as well as those who possess certain prescribed academic functions directly supportive of teaching, such as registrars, librarians, guidance counselors, researchers and other similar persons.´ They include school officials responsible for academic matters, and may include other academic officials. (Magis Young Achievers¶ Learning Center vs. Manalo, 579 S 421)
Accrual of Cause of Action
a.) The right to claim unpaid salaries or salary differentials accrues as they fall due. Salary differentials for a certain month, for example, only accrued after rendition of service in that month, specifically at the end of that month, and so forth and so on. (Datuman vs. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and Promotion Services, Inc. 571 S 41)
Analogous Just Causes of Dismissal
a.) For an employee to be validly dismissed for a cause analogous to those enumerated in Article 282, the cause must involve a voluntary and or willful act or omission of the employee. Theft committed by an employee against a person other than his employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to serious misconduct. An example, involved in this case, is theft of credit cards belonging to a fellow employee. (John Hancock Life Insurance Corporation vs. Davis, 564 S 92)
a.) The filing of a cash or surety bond is a jurisdictional requirement in an appeal involving monetary award, and the bond shall be in effect until the final disposition of the case. A surety bond, once accepted by the obligee (the employee to whom money benefits were due), becomes valid and enforceable, irrespective of whether or not the premiums thereon have been paid by the obligor (the employer liable for payment). (AFP General Insurance Corporation vs. Molina, 556 S 630) b.) Neither Article 223 of the Labor Code nor the Rules on Procedure of the NLRCN require the posting of a bond for the NLRC to entertain a Motion for Reconsideration of its decision. That requirement is only for the perfection of an appeal from a Labor Arbiter¶s decision involving a monetary award.(Cadalin v. CA, 572 SCRA 524)
a.) In awarding attorney¶s fees on account of unlawful withholding of wages, there is no need to show that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly and that the employee was forced to file a case for the collections thereof. (Asian International Manpower Services Inc., v. CA 504 SCRA 103) b.) In its ordinary concept, an attorney¶s fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services rendered to the latter. In its extraordinary concept, attorney¶s fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in the litigation. They are payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have agreed that the award shall petition to the lawyer as additional compensation as part thereof. (Ortiz vs. San Miguel Corporation, 560 SCRA 654) c.) A charging or special lien is an attorney¶s special lien for compensation on the fund or judgment which he has recovered by means of his professional services for his client in a particular case. A client cannot, in the absence of a lawyer¶s fault, consent or waiver, deprive his lawyer of his just fees already earned. The duty of the court is not only to see that lawyers act in a proper and lawful manner but also to see that they are paid their just and lawful fees. The Labor Code explicitly limits attorney¶s fees to a maximum of 10% of the recovered amount. The lien shall attach to the proceeds of the judgment, and the client who received the same, without paying his attorney who was responsible for its recovery, shall hold the said proceeds in trust for his lawyer to the extent of the value of the lawyer¶s recorded lien. (National Power Corporation Drivers and Mechanics Association vs. National Power Corporation, 565 SCRA 417)
a.) The fact that the NLRC did not award back wages to the dismissed employees or that the latter themselves did not appeal the NLRC decision on that ground, does not bar the CA from awarding back wages. There was no error in such award, which was a mere consequence of the finding that the employees were illegally deprived by the employer. (Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. NLRC, 541 SCRA 105)
a.) Without a final judgment declaring the legality of dismissal, dismissed employees are eligible to participate and vote in certification election (since they are deemed to be still employees within the meaning of the Labor Code). (Yokohoma Tire Philippines, Inc. vs. Yokohoma Employers Union, 539 SCRA 556)
at the rate of one month pay for every year of service. Eastridge Golf Club. which was also found in
.1. 2) serving a similar notice on the Department of Labor and Employment within the same period. if the closure is not for serious business losses or financial revenues. Inc. separation pay.) Under Article 283 of the Labor Code. Inc. in connection with a pending case in a lower court or agency does not interrupt the course of the latter if there is no writ of injunction.) Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari ± there is such a question if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. y a. (Eastridge Golf Club. and the influence fairly drawn therefrom collectively may offer a basis for a finding by the NLRC regarding the kind of bargaining done by a party. . Inc. Inc. such as how a particular provision in question. (St. unless reinstatement is no longer possible. 3) payment of separation pay in the required amount.) The decision to close the business is a management prerogative exclusive to the employer. 563 SCRA 93)
11. John Colleges. the following requisites must concur for a valid closure of business: 1) serving a written notice in the employees at least one month before the intended date thereof. (Union of Filipino Employees ± Drug Food and Allied Industrial Unions ± KMU vs. Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effect of an employer¶s or Union¶s individual actions is not the test of good faith bargaining.. Good faith or bad faith is an influence to be drawn from the facts. but the impact of all such occasions and actions. John Faculty and Employees Union. the resultant dismissal shall be upheld. the arbitrator shall principally consider their contemporaneous history and the evidence of past parties. since in their situation the employer has the remedy under the law to refer the matter to voluntary arbitration or collective agreement for resolution. Nestle Philippines. 547 SCRA 323) b. 505 SCRA 764) y b. Closure of Establishment y a. or filing a case for unfair labor practice against the Union on the ground of bargaining in bad faith. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. St. But if shown to be in good faith. 579 SCRA 414)
10. at the rate of ½ month¶s pay for every year of service. in such case the employer shall be liable for payment of full back wages.) There is no per se test of good faith in collective bargaining.. the exercise of which no court or tribunal can meddle with. except only when the employer fails to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 283. and 4) the cessation of operation must be bona fide
The requisite of good faith is not satisfied where the employer closed the establishment unilaterally on the pretext of the excessiveness of the Union¶s collective bargaining demands. considered as a whole.
a. Inc. subject to payment of separation pay. y
9. (General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union ± Tupas vs. Labor Union Super. vs. 507 SCRA 391) b. In order to ascertain the intention of the contracting parties. vs. the dismissal of the employees shall be declared illegal and they shall ordered reinstated with back wages. In case of closure in bad faith.) The terms and conditions of a Collective Bargaining Agreement constitute the law between the parties. (Remington Industrial Sales Corporation vs Castaneda.) The mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari.
) The right to compensation final and executor agreements. Inc. Negrada 547 SCRA 571) b. the compromise must be subject to the said fees.) Article 2073 of the Civil Code. property custodians. following a catena of cases.) Although the collective bargaining agreement. in its face. The employee who claims the contrary should be able to demonstrate by substantial evidence the claimed waiver or condonation. 562 SCRA 495) c. The prerogative of the employers to discipline employees and impose punishment is a legal right and cannot as a general rule be impliedly waived. NLRC. which provides that ³(a) compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata. 569 SCRA 331)
12. (Cosmos Bottling Corporation vs. y a. such as the execution of affidavits by the union managers and the company managers. for the purpose of applying the provision of laws of country as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee. to the second cashiers. auditors. (Santos vs.)For purposes of applying the provisions of the Labor Code on who may join unions of rand and file employees. does not contain an express prohibition of retirement benefits to employees. the parties may still prove it by means of contemporaneous subsequent acts of the parties. 545 SCRA 23)
14. determine and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations´. Michael Press vs. Galit. (Suarez vs. The only qualification for the employee¶s right to compromise a suit is that if the compromise is entered into with the intent of depriving the counsel of the fees justly due him. That the employee was not assisted by his counsel when he entered into a compromise agreement does not render it null and void ± it is valid as long as the consideration is reasonable and the employee signed the waiver voluntarily. Inc. jurisprudence defines ³confidential employees´ as those who ³assist or set in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate. y a. Confidential Employees. not the counsel. (Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. Compromise Agreement. Phil Marine. was previously implemented.´ applies suppletorily to labor to labor cases even if the compromise is not judicially approved. National Steel Corporation.. To the first class belong managerial employees. y a.B. (R. regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. (J. or those who. 561 SCRA 675)
13. as long as exercised by the proper party litigants. has been recognized by the Supreme Court. can impugn the consideration of a compromise is unconscionable. However. Shing Hung Plastics Co. with a full understanding of what he was entering into.. vs. Only the employer.y
three previous Collective bargaining agreements. 567 SCRA 11)
. jurisprudence teaches us that laws of country should ideally apply only to cases involving employees occupying positions of trust and confidence or to those situations where the employer is charged with the care and custody of the employee¶s money or property. in the normal and routine exercise of functions. Condonation.) The fact that numerous past infractions have not been immediately subjected to sanctions cannot be interpreted as condonation of the offense committed. Lepanto Local Staff Union.
It is an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it is not. persons belonging to the same class not treated alike. Due Process. (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. 547 SCRA 220)
16. who is responsible to the principal only for the results of the work. 509 SCRA 332) b.
A provision in the service contract where the contractor warrants to the principal the daily attendance of the workers assigned to the latter is an indication that the contractor is not an independent contractor. 517 SCRA 677)
18. unreasonable or unlikely. it must be established that.15. GSIS Family Bank and Comsavings Bank. An objection based on the ground that one has better credentials than the appointee is frowned upon so lang as the latter possesses the minimum requirements for the position. NLRC.) The fact that an employee who failed to pass the required Board Exam for his position was terminated while another employee who also failed to pass it was allowed by the employer to apply for and transfer to another position in the hospital does not constitute unlawful discrimination. investment and tools to engage in job contracting. And it is the contractor. Agito. 517 SCRA 309) b. Discrimination. there is no reasonable distinction or classification that can be obtained between persons belonging to the same class. y a. or when there is demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both. y a.) Constructive dismissal is a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible. (Dole Philippines. before a claim of discrimination can prosper.
. vs. vs. 579 SCRA 445)
17. Inc. (Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club vs. Constructive Dismissal. (St. and second.) Discrimination refers to a failure to test all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored and those not favored. or when a clear discrimination. Estiva. This was a valid exercise of management prerogative in the absence of a showing that the latter did not have the qualification for the position to which he was transferred.) There is no absolute figure set for what is considered substantial capital for an independent job contractor. Contracting Out of Work. but is ensured against the type of work which the contractor is obliged to perform for the principal. job or service. first.) The employer¶s acts of placing some regular employees on ³stay homes status´ and not giving them work assignments in more than six months are tantamount to constructive and illegal dismissal. y a. the employee who is constructively dismissed may be allowed to keep on reporting for work. based on a reasonable determination of the amount sufficient to carry out the service contract as specified therein. Luke¶s Medical Center Employees Association vs. insensibility or disdain by the employer becomes unbearable to the employee. It is whether a reasonable man in the employee¶s position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. In fact. who has the burden of proving that it has the substantial capital. Inc. Thus. NLRC. not the employee. (Portuguez vs..
) Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the former ± rules which serve as general guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result. operating room or any department or ward is monitored by the hospital through its supervisors. y a. in this case. if the latter controls both the means and the details of the process by which he is to accomplish his task.) There is substantial compliance with due process where the employees were notified that their dismissal was being requested by the Union. (The Peninsula manila vs. Atipio. and the company had no power of dismissal because under the agreement. such as those which confer benefits on the employees or regulate the procedure and requirements for their termination. (Calamba Medical Center.) A person hired by a TV production company as a security guard. NLRC. as well as to control the audience.
The exception is where the doctor is a training resident in a training hospital. since she rendered more than one year of service as intermittent nurse. Some can ripen into an obligation on the part of the employer. Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals. 562 SCRA 36) e. and the training program is approved by the appropriate government agency. since they do not control or fix the methodology and bind or restrain the party hired to the use of such means. (Alabang Country Club. Noncompliance with the latter amounts to denial of due process. 542 SCRA 578) c. 513 SCRA 325) b. and no operations within these areas could be undertaken without the approval or consent of the hospital or its medical director. is an employee. 514 SCRA 164) b. The employer¶s power to reject or approve for publication any specific article a columnist writes for her column cannot be the control contemplated in the control test as it is but logical that one who commissions another to do a piece of work should have the right to accept or reject the product.) Under the control test. Inc. the doctors maintained specific work schedules as determined by the medical director. (Coca-Cola Bottlers [Phils. vs. 545 SCRA 351)
19.) Where the worker¶s service was engaged by the employer intermittently for 5 years as a reliever nurse. not an independent contractor. In any case. and their work in the emergency room.]. there is a training agreement between them. vs. whose relationship with the employer was that of employee under the established tests for determining employee relationship. Climaco. and which were strictly observed under pain of administrative sanctions. (Orosco vs.) Company policies or practices are binding on the parties. under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. she was a regular employee because she was engaged in work that was undoubtedly necessary and desirable in the hotel¶s business of providing comfortable accommodation to its guests.y
a. their explanation heard and were dismissed only after the employer had reviewed and considered the documents submitted by the Union vis-à-vis the written explanation submitted by the said employees. 554 SCRA 550) d. in such case. which consisted of 24 hour shifts totaling 48 hours each week. Employer-Employee Relationship.) There is no employee-employer relationship between a company and a retained physician who entered into a retainership agreement whereby the latter was not subject to the contract of the former in the performance of his duties. vs. (Television and Production Exponents. NLRC. the training resident is not an employee of the hospital. she had acquired regularity of status and could not be dismissed without just or authorized cause. (Suico vs. vs. Inc. a physician is the employee of the hospital that hired him. Inc. such as. Inc. NLRC. both parties could terminate the relationship upon giving a 30-day notice. to provide security service to the support staff of a noontime program (Eat Bulaga). but ostensibly as a ³talent´. stars and guests. But a regular reporter is not as independent in doing his or her work for the employer. thus the company did not wield the sole power of termination. Servana. 571 SCRA 585)
. are not indicative of the power of control.
y a. 567 SCRA 269)
23. and whose fixed terms are a necessity. would operate to its prejudice and support the case of other party. the Supreme Court identified certain circumstances wherein a fixed term is an essential and natural appurtenance. the Labor Arbiter¶s denial of money claims for failure of the complainant to state the particulars to substantiate the same is erroneous. without which no reasonable rotation would be possible. assistant dean. that cause is sufficient for the dismissal of the employee.) Payroll sheets are inconclusive to disprove the employee¶s 8 hour per day work shift. position paper. if produced. No. When a party has in its power to produce evidence that would overthrow a case made against it but fails to do so. Instead of payroll sheets. Field Personnel/Field Work. the time cards would have been more reliable. (Mc Donald¶s [Katipunan Branch] vs.) If required to be at specific places at specific times. y a. 540 SCRA 41) b. Inc. (Duterte vs. This is also the case under P. The failure of the employer to present documentary evidence of payment. (De Guzman vs. To determine whether an employee is a field employee it is also necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. the presumption is that such evidence. I.. cannot be said to be field personnel inspite of the fact that they are performing work away from the principal offices of the employer. gives rise to the presumption that their presentations would be prejudicial to its cause. 534 SCRA 607)
22. Gross Neglect. Kingswood Trading Company. and which he alleged that his employer failed to pay him. 8 of the Minutes of Labor which recognize that certain company officials may be elected for what would amount to a fixed term. however. employees including drivers. Alba.20. inspite of orders for it to do so. appointment to the position of dean. Fixed ± Term Employment. In so doing. It is valid only under certain circumstances. Therefore. It is the employer¶s obligation to prove payment rather than the employees to prove non-payment.) Once the employee set out with particularity in his complaint. such as overseas employment contracts. y a. college secretary. The employee in this case was a teacher whose neglect caused the death of a child under
.. affidavits or other documents the labor standard benefits to which he is entitled. The employer in this case. did not present the same. (Price vs. it becomes the employer¶s burden to prove that it has paid these money claims. Inc. Evidence y a. such as employment contracts which are neither seasonal nor for specific projects but to which a fixed term is essential and natural. which are by practice rotated among the faculty members . In Brent. principal and other administrative officers in educational institutions. at the expiration of which they would have to stand down. an inquiry must be made as to whether the employee¶s time and performance are constantly supervised by the employer. Innodata Phils.) Fixed-term employment contracts are the exceptions rather than the general rule. NLRC. 574 SCRA 427)
21.) While an employee¶s negligence was not habitual but was gross in view of the considerable resultant damage..
even a license or holder of authority can be held liable for illegal recruitment should he commit or omit to do. ³whether for profit or not.) There is illegal recruitment where a non-license or non-holder of authority engages in recruitment activities even in the absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for the recruiter¶s service. 533 SCRA 424) c. if it¶s shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. which is malum prohibitum. under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Sec. and the unworked Saturdays and Sundays. which is a recruitment activity. (People vs. indubitably the employees were given their holiday pay ( with the monthly salary) with said formula. the employees were already paid their regular and special holidays.) The employees involved in this case are required to work only from Monday to Friday. 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. y a. is illegal recruitment although no payment was received therefor.) (Nasi ± Villar vs. vs. acts punishable under the Labor Code. Illegal Recruitment. (There was no condition of the principle of ex post facto law prohibition. an act of recruitment may be ³for profit or not.A.´ (People vs. money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment.A. but alleged in its body. any of the acts enumerated in its Sec. Since the employer used the 360 day divisor. 573 SCRA 572) f. An employee of a company engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal by direct participation. in connection with illegal recruitment. Espanol. (People vs. it is essential that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the complainant to part with a thing of value.) The conduct of preparatory interviews. Even it be true that no money changed hands. Inc. The accused here was properly convicted under the Labor Code which was in force in 1993 when the acts attributed to him were committed. Nogra. Valenciano. y a. (Leyte IV Electric Cooperative. The act of recruitment may be for profit or not.A. People vs. 558 SCRA 223)
24. the days when no work is done.) To convict for estafa under Art.F. Sharp Crew Management. 6. Thus. LEYECO Employees Union ± ALU. 537 SCRA 154)
25.) An employee of a company engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal. together with his employer. as the case may be. (School of the Holy Spirit of Quezon City vs. Taguiam. 571 SCRA 202) e. 8042. the minimum allowable divisor (in determining the daily equivalent of the monthly salary) is 263 (yearly salary ÷ 263). vs.) Under R. (People vs. Although the information charged him with an offense erroneously designated as covered by R. Jr. which is clearly above the minimum. if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process. since the one conducting it did not have the required license or authority. 577 SCRA 116)
. not malum in se. He cannot claim to be merely following the dictates of his employer and use good faith as a shield against criminal liability.her charge when she left some children in the swimming pool without any adult to attend to them. Inc. together with the employer.´ (C. and by definition. Jamiloso. Good faith is not a defense in illegal recruitment.) The basic rule is that a criminal act is permissible under the law in force at the time of its commission. as the definition of _____ in the Labor Code includes the phrase. 8042. 8042. 6 of R. arrived at by deducting 51 unworked Sundays and 51 unworked Saturdays from 365. 512 SCRA 340) b. 563 SCRA 723) d. Holiday Pay. Calimon.
) The contractor cannot claim reimbursement from the principal thru a cross claim filed with the Labor Court. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated. This is rendered irrespective by Art. or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. ( Here jurisdiction was assumed by the regional office as duly authorized representative of the in exercising visitorial and enforcement powers under Art. Sales. 3 of the Rules on the Disp osition of Labor Standard Cases states that where the employee-employer has been severed. It is but axiomatic that the jurisprudence of a tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. for having been undertaken or
. 570 SCRA 373)
f. the proceedings before the said Labor Arbiter and the order and writ subsequently issued by the NLRC are null and void. Servier Philippines. Inc. No. (Santos vs. or their collective bargaining agreement. Inc. vs. (Rural Bank of Coron [Pallocan]. Inc. A corporation can engage its corporate officers to perform services which would make them employees.) The issue of deduction for tax purposes (initiated as a claim for illegal deduction from retirement benefits) is a money claim arising from employee-employer relationship which clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC. 546 SCRA 23) d. the character of the relief prayed for. at the time of the filing of the complaint at the Regional Office. among them Overseas Filipino Workers. all Filipino workers enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation. Sec. as well as the NLRC.) While it is true that Rule II. the same is retained up to the end of litigation. Maraan. Once jurisdiction is vested. over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint. NLRC.. 552 SCRA 295) e.26. not one to collect a sum of money based on civil laws on obligations and contracts. 534 SCRA 515) c. is limited to disputes ar ising from an employeeemployer relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code. as amended which categorically mandates the suspension of all actions in claims against a corporation placed under a management committee by the Securities and Exchange Commission. including a quasi judicial office or government agency. 17 of the Civil Code which states that laws ³which have for their object public order. is determined by the material allegations therein. 572 SCRA 187)
27.D. (Sim vs. Labor Arbiter y Where the Labor Arbiter completely disregarded and violated Sec.) An employer¶s complaint against an employee for reimbursement of training expenses is not within the jurisprudence of the Labor Arbiter. claims for monetary benefits fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. contract stipulation to the contrary notwithstanding. (U ± Bix Corporation vs.) The Labor Arbiter erred in ruling that ³the labor relation system in the Philippines has no extra-territorial jurisdiction.´ Labor Arbiter have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employee-employer relationship. the same does not apply where. other labor statutes. (Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency vs. who was also its financial assistant and personnel officer of the two other sister corporations. (Rizal Security and Protective Services. Jurisdiction. 128 of the Labor Code.. vs. 510 SCRA 443) b. Such claim is within the realm of civil law and jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular courts. including termination disputes involving all workers. Whether employed locally or overseas. Cortez. and the law existing at the time of the filing of the complaint or petition. the complainants were still employees of the respondent. 902A. 6 (c) of P. Hollero.) The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over a complaint filed by a Corporate Secretary against a corporation. y a.
511 SCRA 44)
29. The law must protect not only the welfare of employees but also the rights of employers.) The act of the management in reorganizing the company¶s sales department in order to achieve its objectives is a legitimate exercise of its management prerogative. as a supervisor his functions were of a nature that required the employer¶s full trust and confidence. because. barring any showing of bad faith. y a.]. 574 SCRA 198)
30.E. i. Baban. Lost of Trust and Confidence. its operations being essentially imbued with public interest. NLRC. Managerial Employee. Inc. and all proceedings based thereon are equally worthless. 508 SCRA 245) b.
. 577 SCRA 323)
31. y a. (PCL Shipping Philippines. vs.) The act of supervising medical representatives in attaching to medicine samples to be distributed to dealers a thank-you note of his father who run for and lost his bid for the position of Municipal Vice-Mayor was adequate justification for his dismissal for lost of trust and confidence. y a.) While employers are given a wide latitude of discretion in terminating the service of managerial employees for loss of confidence. Management Prerogative.) A Labor Arbiter or tribunal may legally sustain an employee¶s dismissal on the basis of substantial evidence even if the employee has not been convicted in a criminal case arising from the same act. NLRC. The principle of lex loci contractus (or the law of country where the contract was made) governs in this jurisdiction. Inc. in fine. (Community Rutal Bank of San Isidro [N. Unlike other just causes of dismissal. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void. (Lingkod Manggagawa sa Rubberworld Adidas ± Anglo vs. A bank¶s OIC-Manager is a managerial employee as to whom the employer engages a wide latitude of discretion in setting up stringent standards for continued employment. (Bristol Myers Squibb [Phils] vs. the facts and incidents upon which the lost of confidence may be made to rest. there must be substantial proof thereof which means that the employer must clearly and convincingly established the charges or.. it must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established proven facts. Rubberworld [Phils] Inc. The Labor Arbiter¶s judgment. (Aromin vs. Labor laws discourage interference in employer¶s judgment concerning the conduct of their business. Although the samples had not been actually distributed. trust in an employee. Pace. Inc. except when the law itself authorizes their validity. However. A bank owes great liability to the public it deals with. vs. 553 SCRA 273) c. (Sugue vs. once lost. is difficult if not impossible to regain. being void ab initio is non-existent.. Triumph International [Phils].issued in violation of the SEC suspension order.e. 513 SCRA 208)
28.) The provisions of the Constitution as well as the Labor Code which afford protection to Labor apply to Filipino employees whether working within the Philippines or abroad. Lex Loci Contractus. The dropping of the charges by the prosecutor or the acquittal of the employee would not necessarily negate the existence of lost of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal. as equitable relief he was awarded separation pay of one month¶s pay for every year of service.
Philippine Airlines. The weight standard imposed by an airline company on its cabin crew is necessary for flight safety.) The ³Meiorin Test´ is a test of reasonableness of company policy. 568 SCRA 367)
. as written. Liberal construction of the NLRC Rules (regarding the filing of a bond to perfect an appeal from a judgment with a monetary) is allowed only in meritorious cases. is a managerial employee. Passenger safety goes to the case of a job of a cabin attendant being ____ necessarily impedes mobility. 2) the employer must establish that a standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that work-related purpose.) Art. however. 563 SCRA 210)
32. vs. 3) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate work related activity. (Yrasuegui vs.) The mere fact that an employee is a managerial employee does not give unbridled discretion to the employer to remove him from his job on the ground of loss of confidence. Under this test. only requires the employer ³to retain´ not employ the medical practitioners mentioned therein. 530 SCRA 607) b. Dela Cruz. In this case. 580 SCRA 463)
33. y a. Such standard is deemed to be a ___________. ALC Industries. (LBC Domestic Franchise Co. Medical and Dental Services. The law. Shangrila Mactan Island Resort. there is. NLRC Rules. not necessarily to hire or employ a service provider. 569 SCRA 463)
34. y a. 1) the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected with the performance of a job. a caveat to this policy. where there is substantial compliance with the NLRC Rules of Procedure or where the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the Rules by posting a partial bond. There is nothing in the law which says that medical practitioners required to be engaged should naturally be hired as employees. Inc. a part-time physician and a dentist. as an executive officer next in command to the captain. It stems from the mandate that a wokingman¶s welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration. the employer failed to show by substantial evidence that the employee was guilty of misconduct which makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position. and an emergency clinic which means that it should provide or make available such medical allied services to its employees.) The Chief Mate of a ship. An employer who employs more than 200 workers is mandated to furnish its employees with the services of a full-time registered nurse.y
a.) Although the NLRC Rules of Procedure may be liberally construed in the determination of labor disputes. vs. 157 do not require the engagement of full-time nurse as regular employees of a company employing not less than 50 workers. Florido. (Sy vs. The fact that one is a managerial employee does not by itself exclude him from the protection of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. The services may be provided by independent contractor. (Escasinas vs. Inc. Liberality in the interpretation of the Rules should not be applied where it would render futile the very purpose for which the principle of liberality is adopted. Meirin Test y a. (Centennial Transmissive.
(PCL Shipping Philippines. but whether they actually rendered service beyond the said number of hours. Inc. vs. NLRC.) It is presumed that before the employment of OFWs.35. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and Promotion Services. 511 SCRA 44)
38. Silayro. 504 SCRA 692)
36. the same.) While a penalty may no longer be imposed on offenses for which the employee has already been punished. vs. Notice Requirement. Incompetence may be shown by weighing it against a standard. the alleged incompetence of an OFW as a ground for his dismissal should have factual formalities. 283 of ³serving a written notice on the workers´ which denotes individual notice to be served on each and every employee of the company. Past Offenses. among other offenses may still be used as justification of an employee¶s dismissal.Staff Builders International. The purpose of the trade test is to weed out incompetent applicants from the pool of available workers. Therefore. The subsequently executed side agreement of an overseas contract worker with his foreign employer who reduced his salary below the amount approved by the PDEA is void because it is against our existing laws. 546 SCRA 628) b. Where an employee has already suffered the
. (EDI. morals and public policy. 571 SCRA 41)
37. are continuing violation of the PDEA-approved contract. The court must take into considerations all the offenses that the employee committed during his employment and decide whether those infractions taken together constitute a valid cause for dismissal. (Janssen Pharmaceutica vs. Inc. NLRC. 537 SCRA 409)
b. they were subjected to trade test required by law to be conducted by recruiting agency to ensure the employment of only technically qualified workers for the foreign principal. y a.) The correct rule has always been that previous offenses may be used as justifications for dismissal only if the infractions are related to the subsequent offense upon which the basis of termination is decreed. Inc. Overtime Pay. NLRC. landmark or criterion. y a.. It is the terms of the original PDEA-approved contract of employment that shall govern the relationship between the petitioner-employee and the respondent-recruitment agency and foreign employer.) The correct criterion in determining whether or not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not whether they were on board and cannot leave the ship beyond the regular and working hours a day. (Galaxie Steel Workers Union vs.) The mere posting on the company bulletin board of the written notice of closure or cessation of the employer¶s business does not satisfy the requirement of Art. Overseas Filipino Workers y a.) The signing of the substitute contracts with the foreign employer or principal before the expiration of the PDEA approved contracts and any continuation of the employees beyond the original one year term against the employee¶s will. (Datuman vs. y a.
he was not ordered reinstated but awarded backwages and separation pay. Position Paper. However punishment must be commensurate with the offense committed. 572 SCRA 89)
41. the chief cook in a restaurant was dismissed for stealing squid heads worth P56. The supreme penalty of dismissal is the best penalty to the working man. A series of irregularities. 556 SCRA 374) c. Nazareno. whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe as dismissal. then the employee is entitled to the compensation received for actual services rendered. Payroll Reinstatement. Court of Appeals. 503 SCRA 204)
. honesty is the best policy. He should not have been terminated according to the Supreme Court because this was his first offense in his 31 years of service and he had suffered enough by having been imprisoned ______ and preventively suspended for one month. all in the extent of due process. Thus. and if the decision of the labor arbiter is reversed on appeal. y a. when combined. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. y a. the employer has the right to require the dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to refund the salaries he received while the case was pending appeal or they can be deducted from the accrued benefits that the employee may be entitled to receive from his employer under existing laws. The Labor Arbiter is mandated by law to use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and effectively. It was obviously impracticable for the employer hotel to actually reinstate the employees who shaved their heads and cropped their hair because this was exactly the reason they were prevented from working in the first place. (Genuino vs. After all. pursuant to a labor arbiter¶s decision ordering his reinstatement. CBA provisions. is reinstated only in the payroll at the employer¶s option.) A party¶s failure to file a pp on time is not a ground for striking out the paper from the records. Rustan¶s Commercial Corporation. Velasco. vs.) Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character.y
corresponding penalties for prior infractions. Dismissal should be availed of as a last resort. without need of refund. conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. since he has reached retirement age by the time of the SC decision. much less for dismissing a complaint. and company practices. In this case.. (Sagales vs. The particular circumstances in this case validate the secretary¶s (DOLE) decision to order payroll reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement. (Salas vs. without regard for technicalities of law and procedure. y a. However.) Where an employee. 539 SCRA 342) b. to consider these as justification for his dismissal would be penalizing the employee twice for the same offense. may constitute serious misconduct which is a just cause for dismissal. 570 SCRA 598)
40.) Where a penalty less punitive would suffice. Penalty of Wrongdoing. But if the employee was reinstated to work during the pendency of the appeal. NLRC. 564 SCRA 512)
39. Repeated offenses show a pattern of behavior which proves that the employee is an _____ violation. (PNB vs. Dishonesty should not be condoned. Inc. care should be exercised by employers in imposing dismissal on erring employees.00. (NUWHRAIN Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter vs.) Payroll reinstatement is a departure from the rule and special circumstances which make actual reinstatement impracticable must be shown. Aboitiz One.
But where the waiver is couched in clear and unequivocal terms. (Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co.) The Supreme Court took judicial notice that it is an industry practice in port services to hire reliever stevedores in order to insure smooth 24-hour stevedoring and arrastre operations in the port area.) Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy²it is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person. While the absence of a written contract does not automatically confer regular status. Absent any other proof that the project employees were informed of their status as such. it must be presumed that they were regular employees in accordance with DO No. Boclot. 555 SCRA 537) d) An electrical contractor¶s business depends on the contracts that he is able to obtain from the real estate developers and builders of buildings. Ibanez. Court of Appeals. not a project. leaving no doubt in to the intentions of them giving up a right or
.42. Project Employment. with compliance with the due process requirements mandated by law. Suarez. i. Inc. sudden refusal to return to work when required by the employer to do so. vs. for the employees to be properly deemed as project employees. Project employees enjoy security of tenure and may not be terminated during the period of their project employment except for just or authorized cause. 19. (Saberola vs. necessary and indispensable to the usual trade or business of the employer. and these tasks are vital.) The scope and duration of the undertaking..) Where the employee was merely suspended pending investigation an d was not dismissed. (Philippine Long Distance Company vs. y a. Moreover. Inc. as opposed to intermittently. then the employee must be deemed to be. vs. but a regular employee.e. (Ambee Food Services. Quitclaims y a. albeit on a daily basis. Preventive Suspension. They are not regular employees but are akin to seasonal or project employees. (Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services. vs. It should be deemed part of the nature of the work of such relievers that they can only work as stevedores in the absence of the employees regularly employed for the same service. 534 SCRA 431) c. rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks. Ylagan. 558 SCRA 135)
44. that the law will step in to annul the questionable transactions. it has been construed as a red flag in cases involving the questions of whether the employees concerned are regular or not. the appropriate resolution of the situation should be to allow the employees to work under the same terms and conditions. or the terms of the settlement are unconscionable on its face. the failure of the employer to file a termination report with the DOLE everytime a project or phase thereof is completed indicates that the employees therein were not project employees. but without back wages.) Once someone claimed as a project employee has been continuously. subject to availability of work. series of 1993. 508 SCRA 31)
b. separate and distinct from the company¶s other undertakings. 556 SCRA 59)
43. thus the work provided by him depends on the availability of such contract or projects and the duration of the employment of his workforce is not permanent but coterminous with the projects to which the workers are assigned. y a. must have been determined and made known to the employees at the time of the employment. Ltd.
vs. being contrary to the State¶s policy to afford protection to labor and provide full employment.. the same is ineffective to bar claims for the full inclusions of the employee¶s legal rights. does not furnish an independent business or professional services. Hellera. reduction of work hours and pay is not warranted. Nazareno. Reduction of Work Items. relative to the employer. y Just like installation of labor-saving devices. Inc. it is only retrenchment which requires proof of losses or possible losses as justification for termination of employment. where the company suffered loss in only 1 year. and after notices and consultations with the workers. Ortega. The latter practice of the employer should be struck
. Dire necessity is not an acceptable ground for annulling waiver since it has not been shown that the employee was force to sign it. (Coats Manila Bay. Regularity of Employment. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation vs. such work is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor. (Famanila vs. Court of Appeals.. and was able to retain a considerable amount of earnings to sufficiently sustain its operations. They are regular employees who perform several different duties under the control and supervision of ABS-CBN executives and supervisors. In implementing a redundancy program. (Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. y Workers (production assistants) hired as ³talents´ for pre-agreed ³talent fees´ instead of salaries cannot be considered as talents because they are not actors or radio specialists but mere clerks or utility employees. However. the same is valid and effective. as employer is required to apply reasonable ____ to show the program is fair. (Linton Commercial Co. The presumption is that under the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when the worker. such as those engaged as processing attendants in an establishment engaged in the manufacture and production of food products for export. such as a substantial slump in the demand for his goods and services or there¶s lack of raw materials. well-thought of and in good faith. 579 SCRA 300)
benefit that legally pertains to them. 500 SCRA 119)
45. 500 SCRA 76) b) Where it appears that the employer took advantage of the employee¶s predicament and dire financial needs to let him sign the quitclaims in exchange for his retirement benefits. are regular employees of the latter. Beltran. the ground of redundancy does not require the exhibition of proof of losses or imminent losses of all statutory grounds provided in Article 283 of the Labor Code. although they did not observe the required office hours and were permitted to join other productions during their free time. 535 SCRA 434)
46. vs. 503 SCRA 204)
b) Employees who perform their function alongside regular employees in rendering service which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. y Reduction of the employees¶ work hours is allowed where the arrangement is resorted to by the employer to prevent serious losses due to causes beyond his control. although fixed periods of employment are imposed on them to preclude their acquisition of security of tenure.. Inc.
. is denied retirement benefits because the employer has not provided any. Retirement. pacta private juri public derogere non possunt.) there is no CBA or other applicable employment contract providing for retirement benefits for an employee. NLRC. 512 SCRA 325)
50. Having found that the employee concerned was guilty of a serious misconduct and fraud or breach of trust. 510 SCRA 181)
48.) Article 223 of the Labor Code (on immediate expectation of an order of reinstatement even pending appeal) does not apply where there is no finding of illegal dismissal. she would not have allowed a considerable amount of time (almost 6 months) to elapse before enforcing her rights allegedly violated. The reason for the 1st is to prevent the absurd situation where an employee. along. (Lansangan vs. indeed. y a. as alleged by the employer. consisted of her having given ³voluntary ³ contributions to the plan. termination of an employee on the basis of a retirement plan which was not freely assented to by her amounts to illegal dismissal. y a. Juangco. Amkor Technology Philippines. (Muaje-Tuazon vs. Inc. (The supposed consent. Respondeat Superior y a. RA No. an employee was made to resign against her will. The reason for the 2nd is expressed in the Latin maxim. (Amkor Technology Philippines. otherwise known as The Retirement Pay Law. The plan was adopted when the employee was clearly on her 12th year of employment ± it was not a part of the terms and conditions of employment to which she agreed. Inc.down as contrary to public policy. Reinstatement Pending Appeal. If. 511 SCRA 521)
51. 577 SCRA 439)
49 Resignation y a. Wenphil Corporation.) On the principle of respondeat superior. was not true²the truth being that the employee had no choice but to participate in the plan. who is otherwise deserving. or command responsibility. managerial employees may be held liable for negligence in the performance of their duties for not exercising the high degree of responsibility expected of them. morals. good customs or public order.) An employer is free to impose a retirement age less tham 65 for as long as it has the employees¶ consent.) A person of high educational attainment and qualifications is expected to know the importance of everything she executes and cannot be said to have been duped into signing a resignation or retirement letter against her will. Conversely. 7641. the Labor Arbiter erred in ordering his reinstatement without back wages as a measure of equitable ruling. only applies in a situation where 1. which includes unearthing the fraudulent and irregular activities of their subordinates. with the employer and the employee as the contracting parties. or 2. (San Miguel Corporation vs. vs.) (Jaculbe vs. given that the only way she could refrain from doing that was to resign or lose her job. Private contract
.) there is sucha CBA or other applicable contract providing for retirement benefits which are below the requirements set by law. 518 SCRA 445) b) A retirement plan in a company partakes of the nature of a contract. Silliman University.
(NYK-Fil Ship Management. such as the security guards.y
cannot derogate from the public law..) An employee was validly dismissed for serious misconduct after she sent an e-mail message to her co-employees maligning the employer company¶s Senior Vice ±President. vs. That is the importance of the principal¶s and the contractor¶s solidary liability. the ultimate liability for the payment of the increases rests with the principal.
For the retirement benefits to be exempt from withholding tax. (Santos vs.. the security agency. (Oxales vs. the employee is entitled only to separation pay under the law or retirement benefits under the plan. Court of Appeals. His employment. Her message said: ³He was
. but not to both. the taxpayer is burdened to prove the concurrence of the following elements: 1) a reasonable retirement is maintained by the employer. unless there is a specific prohibition against such double payment is the retirement plan or the CBA. and is not rooted in the provisions of the Labor Code. vs.
For the security guards. Security Guards. and his claims for death or illness compensation. 3) the retiring employee is not less than 50 years of age at the time of retirement. y a. even when they are not actually working. Inc. NLRC. the actual source of the payment of their wage differentials and premiums for holidat or rest day pay does not matter as long as they are paid. 559 SCRA 26) c) The receipt of the retirement benefits does not bar the employee from receiving separation pay because there are not mutually exclusive. may collect from anyone of the solidary debtors. Serious Misconduct. is governed by the contract he signs everytime he is hired. Inc. y a. (Eparisa Security and General Services. and his employment is contextually fixed for a period of time.) A seafarer is a contractual. y a. 503 SCRA 595) b) With respect to the work of the crew of a vessel. 572 SCRA 487)
52. but whether they actually rendered service in excess of the said number of hours. such a prohibition under the retirement plan. 550 SCRA 260)
53. Solidary liability does not mean that in between themselves. and 4) the benefit had been availed of only once. in this case. 508 SCRA 370)
54. two solidary debtors are liable only for half of the payment. In the end. 2) the retiring employee has been in the service of that employer for at least 10 years. However. in order for the security agency to employ with the Wage Order. There being. Seafarers.. in retaliation for the latter¶s disapproval of her plan to hold a Halloween party in the office premises for trick-or-treating the employees¶ children. the Wage Order made a specific provision to amend existing contracts for security services by allowing the adjustment of the consideration to cover the service contractor¶s payment of the increases mandated. Inc. not a regular employee. Inc.) The security guards¶ immediate recourse for the payment of wage increases under a Wage Order is with their direct employer. it could not have been the purpose of the law to require their employees to give them overtime pay or night shift differential pay. United Laboratories. Servier Philippines. The usual criterion in determining whether they were on board and could not have the ship beyond the regular 8 hours of work per day. (Ducut vs. Liceo de Cagayan University. Creditors.
(Biflex Phils. on a day they were scheduled to work. 512 SCRA 437) c) A sit-down strike.. 550 SCRA 307)
55. or retention of his employment. while it is true that the principal was the indirect employer of the complaining employees. Hence. ETSI Technologies. or to petition the government for redress of grievances. vs. and similar activities. an individual employer (principal) (as defined by Article 107) can only be held solidarily liable with the independent contractor or sub-contractor (as provided under Article 109) in the event that the latter fails to pay the wages of its employees (as described in Article 106). Solidary Liability.y
so unfair« para bang lagi siyang iniisahan sa trabaho« anyway. Jr. (Bughaw. (Sta..it is beyond question that only employee under the influence of drugs cannot possibly continue doing his duties without posing a serious threat to the lives and property of his co-workers and even his employer. 518 SCRA 66) b) The Supreme Court took judicial notice that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the user. NLRC. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union vs. where the striking employees have no demands or grievances of their own.) Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but also. (Punzal vs. (Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency vs. 548 SCRA 316) b) Under Articles 106. Inc. is the operative fact which will entitle any of the solidary debtors to reimbursement for the share which corresponds to each of the letters. their work stoppage is beyond legal protection. the joint and solidary liability of the contractor and the principal is mandated to assure compliance with the provisions therein including the statutory minimum wage.
Reinstatement of a striker. commit an illegal work stoppage. 107 and 109 of the Labor Code. or that they were allowed by the latter. which means not only the delivery of money but also the performance in any other manner of obligation. y a. 552 SCRA 295)
56. The use of the word ³may´ in the law (³may be declared to have lost their employemnt status´) grants to the management that option. destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities. CocaCola Bottlers Phils. Inc. Sales.. Where there is no showing that the employees notified the employer of their intention. to join the Welga of BAyan. It is considered as indirect employer only for purposes of unpaid wages. Inc. is a management prerogative which the Supreme Court may not supplant. 511 SCRA 247) y b) The terms ³strike´ includes not only concerted work stoppage but also slow-downs. Payment. attempts to damage. assembly. solohin na lang niya bukas ang office. the exercise of such right is not absolute. it cannot be held liable in the same way as the direct employer in every respect. Treasure island Industrial Corporations. refused to work and instead joined a Welga ng Bayan. The use of illegal drugs is a just cause for dismissal. and the principal as indirect employer of the said employees in case the contractor is unable to pay them. y a) Taken together. despite his participation in an illegal strike. sit-downs. The contractor is made liable as direct employer of his employees. more aptly termed as a ³sympathetic strike´. Labor Union vs. without direct relation to the advancement of the interest of the strikers (but merely to show sympathy for their co-employees
. but they strike for the purpose of directly or indirectly assisting others. Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation. Strike. (MERALCO Industrial Engineering Services Corporation vs. mass leaves. Even if the employees joining such welga were considered merely as an exercise of their freedom of expression.
) An employee¶s appointment as acting principal is merely temporary. 529 SCRA 487)
60. 579 SCRA 421)
58. The fact that the Bank was rehabilitated by special law. The Court has acknowledged the customary arrangement in private schools to rotate administrative positions. Temporary Appointment. Infante. nor any other fringe benefit. Trade Union Center. On the other hand. (G & S Transport Corporation vs.
. and closely resemble profit-sharing payments and have no clear direct or necessary relation to the amount of work actually done by each use.y
dismissed by the employer). Termination of Employment. med reps are not paid sales commissions because they are not salesmen. y a. revocable at will. 533 SCRA 288) d) The union¶s concerted violation of the Hotel¶s Grooming Standards which resulted in the temporary cessation and disruptions of the Hotel¶s operations is an unprotected act and should be considered as an illegal strike. among employees. or one that is good until another appointment is made to take his place²an ³acting appointee´ is essentially a temporary appointment. NLRC. Court of Appeals. through a restraining of its outstanding liabilities. NLRC. NLRC. did not revive the dead relation between the bank and its former employees. y The liquidation of the Philippine Veterans Bank by resolution of the Monetary Board was a valid cause of the employees¶ separation. (Calamba Medical Center. 570 SCRA 598) e) Mere membership in a union does not ipso facto mean participation in a strike. properly excluded from the term basic salary were the commissions paid to medical representatives and rank and file employees as productivity bonus which were generally tied to the productivity or capacity for revenue production of a company. y a. (Cornista-Domingo vs. (This is a case where the Union members reported to work with closely cropped hair or clearly shaven heads.) Salesmen¶s commissions. Participation in a strike. vs. in violation of company standards) (NUWHRAIN Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter vs. 504 SCRA 659)
59. (Magis Young Achievers¶ Learning Center vs. RA 7169. Moreover. comprising a pre-determined percentage of the selling price of the goods sold by each salesman. such as dean or principal. is an illegal strike. Thirteenth-Month Pay. Participation in a strike and intransigence to a return to work order must be duly proved in order to justify immediate demand in a national interest case. without the employee so appointed obtaining security of tenure with respect to their positions. These were not overtime pay payments nor profit-sharing payments. Manalo. 571 SCRA 585)
57. (Reyes vs. Inc. but a portion of the salary structure which represents automatic increment to the monetary value initially assigned to such unit of work rendered b a salesman. were properly included in the term ³basic salary´ for purposes of computing 13th month pay.
are not ULP.) While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the inability to join. the expressions of one thing is the exclusions of another. form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees. accounting personnel radio and telegraph operators. Such confidential employees include bank cashiers.) While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the inability to join. under the Labor Code and its implementing rules. and personal staff. the acts. are union officials who represent the union members in a particular department) are considered as union officers who deserve the penalty of dismissal for joining an illegal strike. since. 567 SCRA 291)
63.. Unfair Labor Practice y a. then a trade union center is without authority to charter directly. jurisprudence has extended the prohibition to confidential employees or those who. 512 SCRA 437)
64. with which it merely complied in good faith does not constitute ULP.
. NLRC. 533 SCRA 125)
61.(Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union vs.
61. shop stewards (who according to Black¶s Law Dictionary. so that.) Under the statutory interpretations maxims expression unius est exclusion alterius.y
a. Unfair Labor Practice. y a. Inc. (NUWHRAN vs. accounting personnel radio and telegraph operators.) As a general rule. form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees. and personal staff. Such confidential employees include bank cashiers. 552 SCRA 284). by reason of their positions or nature of work. who may act as spies of either party to a ________. no matter how unfair.) ULP refers to acts that violate the workers¶ right to _______ without that element. Union Officers. NLRC. Standard Chartered Bank. (Sta. are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. the dismissal of an employee by the company pursuant to a labor union¶s demand in _________ with a security clause. (NUWHRAIN vs.. Unfair Membership. jurisprudence has extended the prohibition to confidential employees or those who. (San Miguel Corporation Employees Union ± PTGWO vs. are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records. who may act as spies of either party to a _______________.) For purposes of the law on strike. by reason of their positions or nature of work. Rosa Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Unions ± PDMP..
62. y a. y a. 567 SCRA 291) b. Union Registration. the power granted to labor organizations to directly create a chapter or local through chartering is given to a federation or national labor union.
at its expense. the Regional Director can conduct inspections and check all violations of labor laws. expects to recover the training cost by availing itself of the pilot¶s services for a certain period of time. Inc. 536 SCRA 125)
66. To make the employer liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.) To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees (vicarious or imputed liability). (SS Ventures Internationa.
The employee driver¶s negligence should not be imported to a fellow employee who only happened to be an occupant of the vehicle. y The visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under Article 128 of the Labor Code.). it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions. Visitorial and Enforcement Powers. To make the employer by reason of the functions assigned to him. This being so. Inc. Article 239 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 9481. Under the same authority. Inc. encompass compliance with all labor standards laws and other labor legislation. spends for the training of a pilot to enable him to require a higher level of skill. (Jaime vs.) The inclusion in a union of disqualified employees is not wrong on the ground of cancellation of union registration. Vicarious Liability. Philippine Airlines. y a. Apostol.
. proficiency. For purposes of vicarious liability. should be returned to the employer following the principle against unjust enrichment which is held applicable in labor cases. employer-employee relationship exists even if the employee was loaned by the employer to another person or entity because control over the employee subsists. (Almario vs. 2) that the services was to be rendered in accordance with the orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times. 532 SCRA 614) b) The ex gratis benefit given to employees terminates on account of a redundancy program. the doctrine of respondeat superior or qui facit per alium is not properly applicable to him. and enforce compliance measures for the benefit of all employees without being compelled to rely on a complaint that has been filed or its allegations. y a. Unjust Enrichment. or technical competence. (Caltex (Phils. and if that expectations is not fully realized because the pilot resigns before the completion of that period. vs. unless and inclusion is due to misrepresentation. and 3) that the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions assigned to him. said pilot cannot refuse to reimburse the costs training without violations the principle of unjust enrichment.y
a. NLRC. who were later on ordered reinstated because of the illegality of the termination (even if the issue of reimbursement was raised for the first time in a petition for review before the Supreme Court).)An airline which. the following must be established: 1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another. 572 SCRA 41)
67. false statement or fraud under the circumstances enumerated in Sections a) and c). exercised through his representatives. The said passenger was not the master or principal of the driver but only an immediate superior employee. regardless of the amount of the claims filed by the workers.. SS Ventures Labor Union. vs. 559 SCRA 435)
as a just cause of termination. under the exception clause in Article 128 (b). 545 SCRA 23) b) Where the dismissal is for just cause. pay later. and must pertain to the duties and he has been engaged to discharges. (Bay Heaven. or the simple act of presenting controverting evidence. of indemnity in the amount of P30. y a)The SC reaffirmed. 550 SCRA 414)
. Evidence consisting of a contract of lease. namely 1) the employee¶s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional. y a. Voluntary Arbitrator¶s Decision. does not automatically divest the DOLE Secretary or any of his authorized representatives. for failure of the employer to comply with the statutory requirements of the due process prior to their dismissal for just cause. lawful. in a series of cases including this one. encourages the concurrence of at least two requisites. For such divestment. the willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. 566 SCRA 353)
70. (R. such as Regional Directors. payroll sheets and quitclaims are verifiable in the normal course of inspection²if not inspected by the inspector. (Moreno vs. Inc. they may be examined by the Regional Director or the Secretary. Christian Publishing. San Sebastian College ± Recoletos Manila.Galit. the lack of statutory due process. not a petition for review for certiorari. following the Wenphil doctrine.) Even if a faculty member¶s failure to obtain the required permission from the school before she engaged in external teaching engagements is a clear transgression of the school¶s policy. as nominal damages under the Civil Code. the latter refer only to cases decided by Labor Arbiters which are appealable to the NLRC. 2) in order to resolve such issues. and 3) such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspections. but the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights. to discourage the abhorrent practice of ³dismiss now. Michael Press vs. there is a need to examine evidentiary matters. Avesco Marketing Corporation.B. y a. should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual. made known to the employee. While Section 2 of that rule provides that the same shall not apply to orders issued under the Labor Code. the following elements must concur: 1) The employer contests the findings of the labor relations officer and raises issues thereon. such misconduct falls below the required level of gravity that would warrant dismissal as a penalty.000 each. vs. Wenphil Doctrine. 571 SCRa 226)
69. of jurisdiction to exercise their visitorial and enforcement powers.The mere disagreement by the employer with the findings of the labor officer. Willful disobedience. Abuan. 560 SCRA 457)
68.) The proper mode of appeal from the voluntary arbitrator¶s decision is review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.¶ (Agullano vs. the reward to the complaining employees. Willful Disobedience. and 2) the order violated must have been reasonable. (Mora vs.
Metro Manila. considering the substantial amount lost. A crew member of a restaurant who ate a piece of chicken requested from a fellow employee. vs. An illegally dismissed OFW. in the 1973 or the 1987 one. in violation of the company¶s meal policy. Gallant Maritime Services. 8042. Inc. What was lost in this case was a service motorcycle. Inc. Inc. therefore . is entitle d to his salaries for the entire unexpired period of their contract. The claim was subject to a uniform rule of computation: basic salaries multiplied by the entire unexpired portion of their employment contract.A. it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of must have been violated some established rules or policies. Triumph International.Discrimination is the failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favoured and those not favoured. was in place at the time the case was decided. were treated alike in the computation of their monetary benefits in case of illegal dismissal. especially the clause providing limitations in the entitlement to back wages.00 which was stolen because the employee concerned failed to lock the steering wheel when he parked it in front of the office. Alba.Although the infraction is not habitual. depriving him of his property. 589 -34
. to ease stomach pains due to hunger. Overseas Filipino Workers. A. Gross and Habitual neglect.A. pursuant to law and jurisprudence prior to the enactment of R. there is no distinction as to whether the GOCC had an original charter or not . 574 SCRA 427)
LABOR Back Wages.all such corporations were covered by the Civil Service. Under the letter. Sugue vs.y
b) With respect to serious misconduct or willful disobedience. LBC Express. it is gross and sufficient to cause dismissal. 558 -94.. 8042. There is no discrimination in imposing a condition for approval of an application for vacation leave. but it must have been performed with wrongful intent. That rule of computation was changed by R. Mateo. PALOMA vs.000. PAL. Discrimination. --Serrano vs. No. or the unexpired portions thereof. No. while on duty and without proper authorizations. regardless of contract periods. Inc. Her initial suspension for 5 days would have been enough. (Mc Donald¶s (Katipunan Branch) vs. without any existing valid governmental purpose. consisting of monetary benefits. with a book value of P46. Under the former. 8042.the condition being the submission of certain reports within 2 days after the leave. No. Government ±Owned or ±Controlled Corporation.The issue of whether a GOCC falls within the ambit of a public sector or a private sector employer resolves itself into the question of whether or not constitutional. only the GOCCs which have original charters are so covered. 582-254.Prior to R. based on the length of the contract and the unexpired period. 577 ± 323. Such clause is unconstitutional because it violates the OFWs¶ right to substantive due process. does not warrant dismissal. where it is not shown that the complaining employee was the only one subjected to such conditions.
This is justified where using the services of an independent contractor is undertaken to effectuate more economic and efficient methods of production. --Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines . Dupo. supra.. moral damages and attorney¶s fees. NWPC. 513²346 Medical and Dental Services²While Article 157 of the Labor Code requires employers to engage the services of medical practitioners in certain establishments depending on the number of their employees. HEPI. security. only requires the employer ³to retain´. Inc 577-323 Minimum Wage Fixing. vs Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt. praying for back wages. Shangri-la¶s Mactan Island Resort.Jurisdiction. without using either the floor-wage method or the salary-ceiling method. was issued in the excess of authority and therefore void insofar as it prescribed an increase to employees receiving more than the minimum wage but valid with respect to those earning the prevailing wage rate. as the grant of such privileges is not a standard of law but a prerogative of management²it is a mere concession or an act of grace of the employer and not a matter of right on the part of the employee. there is nothing therein which says that the practitioners so engaged be actually hired as employees. 592²465. Escasives vs. Triumph International . who was an incorporator and member of the Board of Directors of the employer corporation. The law. not to employ the medical practitioners mentioned therein.
. Leave Privileges²In the grant of vacation leave and sick leave privileges to an employee. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. but the amounts actually received by them should be deducted from the remaining amounts of separation pay and other monetary benefits. This is a case involving abolition of jobs contractable under existing laws and jurisprudence²engineering. The service.Article 291 ( on the 3-year prescriptive period of money claims) covers all money claims from the employer-employee relations and is broader in scope than claims arising from a specific law.The NLRC has jurisdiction over a dismissal case where the employee. both in the Board and as Principal Engineer. 588 ±497. the case being one in which he is seeking reinstatement as Principal Engineer. This is not an intra-corporate dispute but a labor controversy. therefore. 588 -298. CA. the employer is given leeway to improve conditions on entitlement to the same. Redundancy²An employer¶s good faith in implementing a redundancy program is not necessarily destroyed by availment of the services of an independent contractor to replace the services of the terminated employees.. 580 ±604 Money Claims. Gilles vs. and also had an ___ in a project as Principal Engineer. as written. Generosity Quitclaim²A quitclaim that fails to indicate the amounts received by the terminated employees should be invalidated. LW Corporations vs. Sugue vs. janitorial and laundry services.it is not limited to money claims recoverable under the Labor Code but applies also to claims of overseas contract workers. etc. and who lost his position. may be provided by independent contractors.A wage order providing an across-the-board increase to all employees in the ___ concerned. inc. Inc. vs.